Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Well, today on the Word and Flesh podcast, we're going to do something a little different than we normally do.
Few cultural moments have exposed the tensions in the American mind and culture than the Lindsey Clancy trial. And so we are going to address a current hot button topic that we have not really done that before. And today what we want to do is pick that apart from a couple different angles. On one side, there are those who believe that compassion should rule the day and Lindsay Clancy should be set free due to a diagnosis of postpartum psychosis. On the other side, there are those that believe she deserves the death penalty, and there's really every other opinion in between. And so this episode is not about denying the reality of mental illness. It's not about advocating for the death penalty. It's simply about asking whether compassion for the accused can cause Christians to, perhaps even in our own church to think wrongly or to lose clarity about the victims of heinous crimes and how to think from a biblical worldview. And so today, we're going to jump into that question because we believe the central issue is not merely, was Lindsay Clancy mentally ill or is she a murderer?
But there are better questions. And the primary question is, how might God want us to think about this? What does his word have to say?
[00:01:40] Speaker B: Welcome to Word and Flesh, a podcast from the elders of Riverview Baptist Church for Riverview Baptist Church. Thanks for joining us. If you are not a member of Riverview and you're listening to this episode, we're glad you've joined us and hope that it's an encouragement to you. But again, as we think about these episodes, as we plan, and even as we speak, we're thinking pretty directly about shepherding the people of Riverview with the acknowledgement that obviously we're putting it on a public platform, so it's out there for other folks to listen to. Certainly, if you found this or other episodes to be encouraging, you're welcome, obviously, to hit that share button because we're nothing. Nothing's stopping you from doing it. So we're glad you've joined us. As we start this episode, a few things.
I don't know if we call them disclaimers or whatever, but a few things to put out there to sort of set the table with.1, and this is not surprising if you're familiar with this case at all, if you're not familiar with this case at all, actually, you will be, I think, by the end of this conversation. And in some ways, maybe, you know, that's actually. Maybe you're better. Yeah. It might be better not to. But the reality is, like Michael said, it has captured, oh, yeah. The national conversation. And there are reasons for that.
Things don't become part of the national conversation, just kind of randomly. It touches on some really key things that are happening and have happened. So first off, we're going to be talking about some details of this crime, and at several points, it's going to be a little graphic, not. Not gratuitously, but just the nature of what happened. So you should be aware of that. Make a decision about whether or not you listen or with whom you listen. I would say don't have kids around when you're listening to this episode.
Secondly, we're going to be discussing our read on this, on what happened, on how it played out, and our take ultimately very well may go against what you've been thinking.
And even, as you said at the beginning, Michael, I don't think it's even correct to say that there are just two.
Two perspectives. There have been quite a few different perspectives that I don't always like putting things on, like a spectrum or gradient, but whatever. There's been a lot of different perspectives on this. So what we say might very well, in fact probably will at some point go against something that you have thought or somewhere that you have landed.
A lot of folks go, I've listened to X number of hours about this and watched this number of things and this number of videos and whatever. And here's what I think. And so this is the world we're in. Information just dump all the time. And so we all have a lot of backing for the things that we think.
In the end, though, none of us is sitting on that jury. I mean, I guess somebody in theory who listens to this podcast could. But then you should be excluded from sitting on it if you listen to the podcast, right?
[00:04:20] Speaker C: So.
[00:04:21] Speaker B: Well, I'm just saying, like, anyways, by the way, they've had a jury, so. But none of us sitting on the jury. So our opinion is not consequential when it comes to justice actually playing out in this case. Right. So in a certain sense, that's not what's at stake here. But what is at stake is, is the opportunity to surface some beliefs, some presuppositions, some postures that we have adopted and ask, why have I adopted those?
Are they biblical?
Are they cultural?
Those don't always overlap, by the way. They can. They can, but they don't always. Right. Are they rational or totally irrational? Are they emotionally driven? And should they be that? I think Is the real value of us, or frankly, anybody trying to have a measured conversation about what's happened is to examine what do I think and why do I think it?
Because you're not on the jury.
[00:05:16] Speaker C: Not just what did I hear?
[00:05:18] Speaker B: Exactly.
And then finally, let's just say up front that as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, as followers of Jesus in God's kingdom, we hope sincerely for the repentance and salvation of all men. Right. There is no sin too great that God cannot forgive it. Christ died for the sin of all who will receive his free gift. So when it comes to Lindsay Clancy, her husband, the jurors, people who think Lindsay should be set free and celebrated as a feminist hero, people who think Lindsay should be found guilty and immediately executed, everybody in between, our desire is the same for all that they would know Christ as king, that they would repent of their sin and believe the Gospel.
[00:05:55] Speaker A: Amen.
[00:05:55] Speaker B: That is like, we want to just say that unequivocally, because that is what we are about. That's what we're here for.
We want to see all men reconciled to God.
[00:06:04] Speaker C: Paul.
[00:06:05] Speaker B: Echoing Paul, even in that. Right. So I want to set the table with those things because those are actually critical foundation pieces to then a conversation about this. Because whatever we say ought not and does not negate those things that are true.
So let's start with going over things that essentially nobody disputes. I mean, literally in the courtroom were not disputed facts of the case. Right. This is kind of how you start even when you file a legal brief. Right. You go, these are the things that everyone knows are true. Now, again, some people debate some of those, but in this case, I don't think hardly anybody is. So let's run down those.
Lindsey Clancy and her husband Patrick, live in Duxbury, Massachusetts.
You can correct me if you think
[00:06:52] Speaker C: I at that point.
[00:06:53] Speaker B: Oh, yeah. Thanks.
They had three children. Cora, age 5, Dawson, age 3, and Callan, age 8 months. Lindsey was an RN registered nurse at a local hospital. Patrick worked from home.
She had finished her maternity leave after having their third child, Callan.
That was when Callan was about four months old, four to five months old. She didn't return to work, though, after that maternity leave. She was having apparently mental issues and ended up briefly in a psychiatric hospital. Was prescribed a series of drugs over a period of time. Those things are not disputed. I don't think she had been to doctors about her mental state.
Like I said, she was on various meds. What I read was that she had been prescribed at least 13 different ones. Over a period of time not clear that she was on all of those at the time of the murder, but some, at least the day of the murder, she sent her husband out to get lunch from a restaurant, and then while he was away, she killed her three children, strangled them in the basement using exercise bands.
She then jumped out of a second story window and experienced catastrophic spinal injuries and is paralyzed, presumably for life, from that.
Patrick, when he returned home with lunch, found her outside.
He said, where are the kids? She said, in the basement. And he went and found them there. One child was resuscitated briefly but never recovered brain function, and all three children died.
Lindsay has since contended that she experienced a psychotic episode in which she heard a man's voice telling her to kill the children. That's what she claims.
She was charged with murder. The case played out over the past several weeks as we're recording this before a jury composed of nine women and three men. Three of those women, my understanding, is, wore a pink dress at least one of the days in court, which had become a symbol for the people who were in the support Lindsey Clancy movement. There were a whole bunch of people that showed up near the court, outside the court, in a show of support. Yeah. For Lindsay, some of them brought their children, and pink dresses was kind of the attire of those protests.
Again, those things are true. I'm just saying these are things that nobody disagrees with.
The jury ultimately came to a stalemate over her guilt or not guilt.
The defense did not contend that she didn't kill the children. They simply contended that she was.
They essentially entered a plea of insanity. They contended that she was not in her right mind and thus should not be found guilty of murder due to insanity.
Eleven juries were ready to acquit her of the charges.
One juror, a man, refused to acquit
[00:09:46] Speaker C: by reason of insanity, not acquit by saying she didn't do it.
[00:09:49] Speaker B: Yeah, good clarification. Yep, in some. And we'll talk about those interviews from some jurors in a sec. The judge ultimately declared a mistrial, which means that the charges actually could be refiled and a new trial could proceed.
She was not actually acquitted on the charges. In other words, those charges could be refiled in interviews since the mistrial. And this is the last kind of fact of the case. And then we'll dive into discussion about it. In interviews since the mistrial, several jurors have come out and said that they acknowledged that Lindsey killed the children. Right.
[00:10:25] Speaker C: There's basically no disagreement about that.
[00:10:27] Speaker B: There's not any disagreement about that. The jurors, again, one juror's words were something to the effect of talking about the.
The one holdout juror, the man they were upset about his decision took them. I think they deliberated for a few days. I believe it was many days. Yeah.
[00:10:42] Speaker C: Yeah.
[00:10:43] Speaker B: And of course, you know, the way a jury works is there has to be a unanimous decision. If it's not a unanimous decision, sometimes the judge will go, get back in there until you come to a unanimous decision.
But if they don't come to one and it's clear they're at a stalemate, then it can be declared a mistrial, which is what happened. Some of the jurors since then have said, you know, said, yeah, you know, that Lindsey killed her children, and even said that the man who kind of caused the stalemate, who said, no, I'm not acquitting her.
One of the things that they said about him was he couldn't get over the fact that he, quote, viciously. That Lindsey, quote, viciously murdered her children. That was, again, that was one of the jurors who was ready to acquit her, acknowledging that. So I'm just saying, even in the interviews afterwards, these jurors who were ready to acquit her acknowledged that Lindsay murdered the children. She killed them.
So that wasn't up for debate. What was up for debate was, should she be held found guilty and punished as a murderer for that?
So those are. I mean, there are other facts, obviously, that were brought forward, but I think those are the critical ones to kind of lay the groundwork for us to discuss this.
I've talked enough setting some of that up. Somebody else. That's always the case on this podcast, though, so, you know, just blanket apology for talking too much. But somebody else jump in and give at least your initial take on this, knowing that it's sensitive and that there are people listening. There are people within our congregation that have varying takes on what has happened.
[00:12:12] Speaker C: Yeah. I'll offer two quick comments. I just think it's really important. We've already said it, but it's really important to say that the question of the case was not, did Lindsay kill the children?
Which is to say, those over reading into Patrick's coy or not coy response on the witness stand is irrelevant because the question was not, oh, did Patrick kill the kids?
The question was, was Lindsay criminally responsible because of her postpartum psychosis? Not, oh, is there some other hidden story we don't know? There is basically unanimous agreement from all those involved in the investigation, jurors, investigators, her own defense, which you could probably assume that in a moment of attorney client privilege, she said, I killed the kids. Right.
So that's my first thought. Just to clarif, just to continue to push that, like to put all those social media talking heads aside and say that was not the questions case.
Secondarily, I just want to encourage Christians that the.
It's so sad to me because the same exact conversation that happens in the abortion debates is the same exact conversation happening right now.
[00:13:25] Speaker B: What do you mean?
[00:13:25] Speaker C: If you argue with someone who's very pro abortion, they will not talk about the child.
They don't want to talk about the baby in the womb. They won't even call it a baby. They just want to talk about their personal, autonomous, expressive, individual will to kill their children. They don't want to talk about the baby. Anytime you bring up the baby, anytime you bring up that it's a child, they move on.
And unfortunately, the same exact thing is happening in this conversation where sadly, these three precious kids, Cora Dawson and Callan, are being talked about less than anything else in this case.
And I just want to encourage Christians that that is the real fact of the matter. There were three kids brutally murdered by a woman. And that's tragic.
[00:14:07] Speaker A: Yeah. And I think that's where, you know, when we think about this issue, certainly it's an emotionally charged one, but I actually think it's important for us to pause and to start to pick apart.
Why? Why is this so emotionally charged? And why do even some Christians begin to think, hey, we should defend this woman or other Christians, we should see her executed tomorrow? How do we get to these polar extremes so quickly? I think there are some cultural influences that are pressing on all of us behind the scenes that some of us may know and be familiar with. Some of us may not even be really aware that they're even out there.
And I think that's where I wanted us to really begin to look and say, hey, let's talk through these and think about how all of us might be affected by them. And so the first one is just this idea of postmodernism. And I think postmodernism is a worldview. It's a philosophical perspective that questions modernity, the idea that there are objective truths in the world, that the world is governed by scientific facts, and that at the end of the day, those things matter above all else. And so it approaches institutions, it approaches authority, it approaches really any kind of truth claim with a posture of suspicion. And I Think right away.
You can see that all over social media if you start to watch.
Well, here's why I think Patrick did it, or here's why I think this TikTok expert who has no criminal background, criminal justice background, this person who just has an opinion sitting on a couch, that's the person I agree with.
Why are we doing that? I think that's an important thing to pause and ask. And the short answer is because we don't know what truth is anymore and we don't respect authority anymore as a people. And that's a problem when you have a defense attorney, you have a judge, you have a jury, and you have a prosecuting attorney and a defendant all saying, yes, she killed the children.
Guys, it's time to admit. All right, this isn't going to be debated anymore. That piece has to be settled and set aside.
It is the influence of postmodernism that causes us to say, against all facts, this is my opinion.
[00:16:36] Speaker C: Yeah, it's like a.
It's a. It's like a really ugly blend of postmodernism and a little bit of gnosticism, which is to say that there's like a hidden spiritual, you know, a hidden, like, soul level thing to everything. And it's like, I don't trust anything. And there's a hidden meaning here that they're not telling you. It's like, well, in some situations, that's true. Yeah, they're not telling you something. But. But in this case, the. The question of postmodernism is, is there any such thing as truth? And. And to your point, when. When, you know, like, it should be crazy to us that we would allow a social media talking head who has no real objective, trained experience to talk about these matters to define everything that we think is true about the situation.
[00:17:22] Speaker B: Postmodernism, again, some folks have a lot of ideas about what that means when you say the word postmodernism. Other people are like, that sounds weird. I just turned off this podcast, but that's a very loaded term. But.
Right. I think you explained it well, and it's really just a term that's meant to reveal a kind of posture that it's actually difficult to realize you're even adopting. That's right. Yeah. It describes like a spirit of an age almost.
And it's good to recognize it so that you can then kick back against the parts of it that are vile. A lot of times, though, a spirit of an age has a lot of criticisms, a lot of things it adopts, and a few of the Criticisms are actually correct.
And then a few of the things it adopts are kind of true in a way. But anyway.
But what postmodernism actually does, ultimately, is it tries to break a relationship, like you said, with truth from a objective standpoint at all authority and all those things. But it leads you two directions. And without making this a philosophy lesson, because, my goodness, no one's that it leads you two directions. It either leads you into what's called nihilism or nihilism, whatever. Which means. Which just says nothing has any meaning. And actually, again, in my philosophy class in college, they were like, you know, the correct.
[00:18:41] Speaker C: Everything's worthless.
[00:18:42] Speaker B: The correct final act of the nihilist is to just lay down and die. Because, like, nothing has meaning. That would be. That's where it terminates. Or it leads into a kind of. What's called existentialism. I'm so sorry for all the isms, but. Which essentially means I'm gonna make up my own meaning now, because there is no meaning baked into the fabric of reality by God. I'm gonna just live my own truth. Right. I'm gonna live in whatever I live, whatever I choose. The me choosing it is the creation of goodness, truth, and meaning. Right. And so it actually postures yourself as God. Now, there are some Christians who try to kind of look at existentialism a different way. We're not gonna go to that. But the point is broadly the direction, I think the direction a lot of our culture went. Cause nihilism ultimately just results in a lot of people being depressed. And.
[00:19:33] Speaker A: Yeah, nobody likes to.
[00:19:34] Speaker B: Yeah, nobody really wants to end up there. So where the culture ends up going is make your own truth. Like, make your own virtue. You decide what's good and. And you decide it simply by doing it. The doing of it, if you acted with agency. Right.
Is the good thing. And so it's interesting because that is absolutely. I mean, again, I think that's almost indisputable that that's what existentialism says.
Generally, philosophers would agree with you. That's what existentialism says. And if you examine that definition with how our culture thinks and lives, you go, oh, yeah, that's like. That's how we roll a lot of the time.
[00:20:11] Speaker A: Well, and the way that just the acid test in my mind is, if you've been influenced by this in this court case is one of your primary questions is, whom do I trust or distrust? In other words, your starting point is not what is true.
It's how do I feel about that person, or do I like that individual and do I relate? Can I see myself in that person? Those kinds of questions, frankly, should not matter.
I mean, the biblical mandate is really interesting, even from Leviticus 19.
Leviticus 19:15 talks about pursuing justice and truth. Listen to this. You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. And so the idea again is there is a moral truth. There is a righteous way to approach.
[00:21:09] Speaker C: Can you read that again?
[00:21:10] Speaker A: Yeah.
You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.
So the idea being there is a righteous standard, and that standard is not my standard. That standard is not your standard. Whose standard is it? It's God's. That's the standard that we're to judge one another by.
[00:21:31] Speaker B: It's so interesting that it says don't show deference to the poor when it comes to justice. Because we understand the. Like we would understand a command to not show deference to the rich because it's like, yeah, because, you know, they're super important or whatever. And so you'd need that admonition, but don't show it to the poor. Why would he need to say that?
[00:21:48] Speaker C: Yeah, well, because there's an emotional disposition towards someone who's less pity them.
[00:21:51] Speaker B: Yeah. You're like, oh, and that affects their man. That wasn't their fault. Like, they fell on hard times, they had to do this or that, you know, or whatever. They're a product of some kind of societal injustice or whatever.
Like, honestly, I think that's where that comes from. Because he's saying you're going to be tempted to show a kind of, you know, squishiness injustice when it comes to the poor for those reasons.
[00:22:13] Speaker C: I don't know if I should say this. We could totally cut it out. But that is likely the reason why in a last.
A last stand. Her defense attorney appealed to the American Disabilities Act. Hey, look, feel bad for her. She's disabled. And it's like we can recognize that that's not that that stinks, but that has no, that has no playing on.
[00:22:36] Speaker B: I mean, he means disabled. Like paralyzed.
[00:22:38] Speaker C: Yeah, he's in a wheelchair. I mean, I guess I don't even know what he's referring to. That's why it was so darn weird. Yeah, but.
[00:22:44] Speaker A: Well, I would just say, I mean, in my mind, if you take today's like woke culture, really, what, what he's talking about. Is don't show favor to the oppressor or the oppressed, if you want to use that term, is the rich person that's got it all together and has all the power, or the person that's disenfranchised. Like, either way, look at God's standard and hold them to that. And I think that's one of the key pieces that I just want us to start with is, okay, what's our standard?
It's not, who do I trust? It's not, do I see myself in this person. It is ultimately, which is a postmodern.
[00:23:22] Speaker C: That is one of the ugliest postmodern questions.
[00:23:25] Speaker A: Yeah. And we're going to get into that even more when we talk about expressive individualism in just a minute. But, yeah, I think that's where a lot of our emotions, before we've even got all the facts of what happened, we start to get riled up and say, well, yeah, I can't stand the way Patrick Clancy talked about this situation. So I don't trust him.
[00:23:43] Speaker C: I can't believe he took a walk with his new wife in Manhattan. He's guilty.
[00:23:47] Speaker A: I don't know about that, but, yeah,
[00:23:48] Speaker C: it's like a picture. It's like this crazy. One thing I want to add to this is I recognize fully why there is massive institutional distrust.
And, you know, there's. There's a large part where that was already true before 2020. But the fact of the matter is, anytime you think about institutions nowadays, you think about how the government absolutely, royally ruined the COVID situation and. And demanded things that were crazy and. And lied straight to our faces. The difference there is there was a lot of facts that were disconcerting and not true, and we kind of knew it.
And the government just put the pedal to the metal and said, this is the way. Who cares if we know that masks don't work? We're not trying to get into a Covid conversation. But all of a sudden, that boiled over into a massive level institutional distrust across the board.
[00:24:41] Speaker B: Yeah, it's just pure cynicism about any truth claim. Like whatever truth claim is made.
It can't be that.
[00:24:48] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:24:48] Speaker B: It has to be some sort of secret other truth behind.
[00:24:51] Speaker C: Right. Which is why Michael's question is an insanely important question, because in this case, it's in that case, too. What do the facts say? What is the truth? Forget about my disposition to not trust anybody or to be cynical or to emote with someone or to. To. To stand now. Forget that.
What happened?
[00:25:12] Speaker B: Yeah, well.
[00:25:13] Speaker A: And I Would just say, you know, the.
As another piece to that, too. Just that ultimately, one of the struggles that we've got to kind of just wrestle to the mat is this.
As Christians, we respect institutions, but we don't teach that they are infallible. Only God is infallible. And so, again, we're told Romans 13 honor the governing authorities. There is a level of respect and honor that we want to show to the government that we're called to. But at the end of the day, we don't teach that you just blindly follow the government.
And I think that's, again, important, because if there was some over.
Overtly. Excuse me, overtly. Just obvious problem with the case that, hey, maybe Lindsay didn't kill the children, then we would need to pause, right? We would have reason to say, okay, wait, hold. You know, everybody press the brakes.
But the reason is.
The reason we want to press on this is that's not where this case is. That's not the situation. And I think.
Yeah, I think it's just important to say we're not following institutions blindly. We're looking at what is truth, and how do we hold that up to what God has already said, because he is the ultimate source of truth.
[00:26:33] Speaker B: Good.
[00:26:34] Speaker C: Okay. Pastor Michael, what's the second.
We want you to be the one to say, listen, what is the second cultural pressure that's playing into this moment?
[00:26:44] Speaker A: Yeah, the second other major pressure. And there's many, but these are just a few. Another one is feminism. And that there is this entire conversation that's being had all the time in the background about, you know, that there's gendered.
Whether you want to call it asymmetry or unfairness or discrimination or. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. But that men and women, interestingly, and this is a really interesting point, are the same, but are not the same and are treated not the same and yet should be treated the same. But deep down, we're all the same because we can transition or do whatever we want to do. Right.
And the reality is claiming to be
[00:27:30] Speaker C: wise, they became fools.
[00:27:31] Speaker A: Right.
Reality is, I think we have to be aware that that plays into the way that this is approached in the courtroom, whether we want it to be or not. It's just a fact of where we're at as a culture. And so I got some more thoughts I want to share in a minute on that, but I'll let you guys kind of. What are your thoughts on feminism?
What is feminism? Somebody give us a definition.
[00:27:58] Speaker B: Man, you didn't. Definitions are always the hardest, because you want to give a real concise, like, one sentence thing. I should have that.
[00:28:03] Speaker C: Yeah, that question wasn't on the script.
[00:28:05] Speaker B: That wasn't on the script.
So feminism is. I'll say what it's. What it's born out of, like the posture that it. That it has feminism rejects, ultimately, I would say God's design for women.
And it couches. It couches being a woman in terms of not being a woman in relationship to God's design for man, manhood, and womanhood, but rather it creates kind of a category of patriarchs, patriarchy that is oppressive.
And the value set of feminism is to throw off the shackles of that oppression for women to. In fact, hilariously, it's. I mean, it's not funny, but. But wildly, to essentially become like men.
That is kind of the end game of feminism is for women to become like men. So then you see with feminism, everything from blurring the distinctions between men and women, I mean, everything, frankly, from, like, attire, you know, to encouraging women to be promiscuous. Right.
And then. And then viewing the things that God made unique to womanhood as. Rather than being a blessing, as being a burden. So, for example, motherhood and a home.
[00:29:38] Speaker C: Oppressive.
[00:29:38] Speaker B: That's oppressive. Right. So again, I can't do the one sentence definition. This is the best I can do with your question.
[00:29:43] Speaker C: You asked a journalist I know.
[00:29:44] Speaker B: Well, I guess I didn't have the one sentence ready.
[00:29:46] Speaker C: But you asked a pastor to get.
[00:29:48] Speaker B: Viewing those things as oppressive. Viewing ultimately and then viewing one's self and one's decisions about one's own body as like, the ultimate right, as the pinnacle. And so then. So abortion becomes the sacrament of feminism. That's what I'm trying to say.
[00:30:06] Speaker C: Definitely.
[00:30:06] Speaker B: Abortion becomes kind of the, like, killing your own children actually becomes the. The pinnacle moment of feminism because it is the moment where you free yourself in the feminist language from these things that have been foisted on you by men because a man got you pregnant by cultural expectations, et cetera, and so on. Right. And so that's why, like, the birth control pill was a huge part of the feminist wave because gave women this kind of false sense, but did open the door for sexual promiscuity without children potentially. Right. And so those things. So that's all I got. I'm gonna stop talking about it. But that's kind of my broad painting. I think I could say something.
[00:30:56] Speaker A: Yeah, I'll say. I'll give you a definition. So I think it's a philosophy and. Or movement that seeks to oppose the patriarchy and establish absolute equality between men and women, whatever that may mean or look like. There's a thousand different tentacles that. That grows. But I would say. I think that's the general gist. What do you guys think?
[00:31:14] Speaker B: Well, yeah, I said what I think.
[00:31:16] Speaker C: Agreed.
[00:31:16] Speaker B: Yeah. We can cut it out. Yeah, it was too long.
[00:31:18] Speaker C: Nathan's was six minutes. Michael's was 30 seconds. I'm going to aim for two minutes.
No, I. I would say that simply feminism in its most basic form argues that there's no real definition for womenhood. It is whatever you want it to be. It's an ugly, expressive individualism.
But it also, it shifted the way in which women relate to the world as generally mothers, daughters, you know, homemakers, yada, yada, yada, from that being traditional and helpful and the cultural norm to being the paradigm of oppressor oppressed.
And downstream of that oppressor, oppressed is that no matter the woman, no matter her station, no matter her agency, she's oppressed. And so she has an excuse to do whatever she wants because she's oppressed and she's breaking out of the oppression.
And are we allowed to also now start talking about how this affects this case?
[00:32:19] Speaker A: I think, sure. Yeah.
[00:32:21] Speaker C: Okay. And that's. I think one of the most.
One of the ways in which this is playing out in the Clancy case is that again, we've already said there's basically unanimous agreement. Well, there is unanimous agreement in defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, jurors, investigators, forensic folks that she killed these children.
It is only through the oppressor, oppressed language and philosophy of feminism that you could say, against all evidence, she was coerced into thinking that she did it.
[00:32:59] Speaker B: Right.
[00:33:00] Speaker C: That's feminism.
That's an impossibility. When all the facts line up, you say, oh, but because that's another thing of feminism. All men are oppressors and all women are oppressed. And so if that's the philosophy, then Patrick oppressed her into admitting that she killed the children and she didn't, or whatever the case, that is feminism only possible.
[00:33:26] Speaker B: And I think, again, I don't. So I want to actually really acknowledge that the way frameworks like that, way worldviews like that work is, you don't always see that you have it.
You don't always have.
Not everybody carries 100% of it. So when I said the thing about, like, killing your own children, abortion, or in this case, being the crowning of feminist.
[00:33:47] Speaker C: Feminist.
[00:33:48] Speaker B: And yeah, there's a way to have adopted certain tenants of feminism, but be opposed to abortion. Right. And I actually probably should have made that distinction as I was saying that, but I talked too long already, so.
But you know what I mean? Like, it's actually really, I think, important to go. Okay. But, yeah, I haven't adopted the entire, like, oppressor framework.
But to ask yourself, in what areas has it perhaps creeped in? Right. Again. And I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, but even the detail about it, like, being a man's voice that told her to kill the children. I'm not saying that was all, like, plotted out and that was a lie or whatever. I'm just saying that feeds this kind of emotional response. That's my point. Like, I don't. I don't think that had to be like, ooh, what could we say that would make people manipulate? I don't know. I mean, maybe she really did think she heard a man's voice. What I'm saying is the effect that has on the hearer who has adopted some of the feminist framework.
[00:34:47] Speaker C: Hugely emotional.
[00:34:47] Speaker B: Yeah. And that's what I'm saying. So I think with all these things, it's really key to recognize what feminism changes about our perspective on what's true. And here's the first of all, have I agreed with any of that?
[00:35:02] Speaker A: I would dare say that both post modernism and really feminism springs from that.
[00:35:09] Speaker C: Definitely.
[00:35:12] Speaker A: There are certain degrees to which all of us have adopted certain pieces of it. Yeah, I was gonna say that, myself included. I mean, all of us. Now, here's what matters then, is, okay, we swim in this, and we don't even know we're swimming in it. I mean, we're just in it.
What does the Bible teach us about men and women? What does it teach us about male and female?
[00:35:33] Speaker B: See our previous published works, but I'll just say yes. And also that it's critical to say when we oppose feminism, that's not opposing females.
Women are great.
A married one. It's actually. It's actually being very pro God's design for women. So I think it's important to say that too, because people can go, man, you guys just like to beat up on. On, you know, women, and you want them to be nothing. And it's like, no, I actually want them to be exactly what God designed. And so that's why we go hard against feminism, because it distorts God's design. That's the reason you go at it like that.
[00:36:09] Speaker C: Men and women are equal in dignity and value.
[00:36:12] Speaker A: Thank you.
[00:36:12] Speaker C: And made to do different things to the glory of God.
[00:36:15] Speaker A: Amen. And Genesis 1:27 tells us that we are both made in the image of God. We both have innate dignity, inerrant worth and value that is described by God, not by what we do, not by what the culture tells us. And I think those things are critical because here's what that also means.
The oppressor, oppressed narrative tends to take agency away from an individual.
[00:36:43] Speaker C: Okay, you have to define agency.
[00:36:45] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:36:45] Speaker A: Agency essentially is actual. The ability to make actual decisions and bear genuine responsibility for those decisions.
And so that was a one sentence definition.
[00:36:57] Speaker B: I can't do those.
[00:37:01] Speaker A: You messed me up.
[00:37:02] Speaker B: Sorry.
Agency.
[00:37:04] Speaker A: Yeah, agency. And so here's what's important Biblically.
Equal dignity, equal image bearing also implies equal moral agency and accountability for that agency. And that's justice that goes to both men and women. And that's profound. That matters. And actually, again shows, I hope we value women, like women are infinitely wonderful, beautiful and good in terms of the way God designed them. Now, does that mean that they're flawed and broken? Absolutely. As it does that men are also flawed and broken because of the fall. And so there's this reality that we all wrestle with. And here's where I want us to go.
I think that we would have to start to parse out, okay. If we know this woman murdered her children, and we also know that that is essentially an offense that is outlined in the scriptures in the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not murder.
She has broken God's law.
[00:38:16] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:38:16] Speaker A: That's not debatable.
[00:38:17] Speaker C: Yeah, no, not debatable.
[00:38:20] Speaker A: She bears responsibility for breaking that law.
Is that debatable?
[00:38:25] Speaker B: No, no, no.
[00:38:27] Speaker A: So what we can't say is, okay, well, she might have been oppressed or. And again, we're going to get into mental illness, and that's a real thing.
But if a person, even with a mental illness, does something that doesn't negate the fact that they broke God's law.
And so that there is a reality where we say walking free is not an option being declared.
Hey, this is a tragedy. I empathize with you. I'm sorry that you're oppressed. These things happened. And so we're just going to sponge over it and wipe it away and pretend it never happened. That's not a biblical perspective.
[00:39:08] Speaker B: Well, let's say two things about that. It is a biblical perspective when it comes to the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Right, of course. In other words, she can be forgiven of that sin through the blood of Christ. Correct. Right. And. And Spend eternity with God and a body that can walk. That's like, we believe that. That she can be forgiven of that sin.
[00:39:26] Speaker A: Absolutely. I don't want that for her.
[00:39:27] Speaker B: Yeah, right. I don't know that she has repented. I would think that if she had, she would make that public. But like, we would want that. Secondly, though, when it comes to like you're saying the government that is instituted by God, even though they're very flawed. Right.
[00:39:39] Speaker C: To bear the sword of justice.
[00:39:40] Speaker B: Yeah, to bear the sword of justice. Right. Like, we have to go, okay, but. But is it right and does it accomplish good things in a society for a government to look at someone who indisputably murdered three children and go, yeah, but. And then let them walk free? Is that good for a society? And so you see what I mean, like, because we can go, God's forgiveness extends to that person, yet we would seek for there to be justice done. Because the Bible makes those distinctions, even like talks about judges and stuff and that you should judge justly. And so I think that that's a temptation for Christians. That's my point is if God can forgive that sin, why can't we or something? You know what I mean? And it's like we're talking about two different things here.
[00:40:27] Speaker A: Yes, and I would agree with that. And in fact, I thought we might go there later, but that's perfect. We'll go there now. Is essentially the gospel does apply to Lindsey Clancy, but that doesn't remove the reality of consequences in a fallen and broken world. And that is true. We would say the same thing. For he's not a gentleman. The man who has raped a child and then goes back and actually is genuinely saved in prison. We would not say to that man, well, now that you're a Christian, you should be able to be set free. We would say, no, stay in jail, serve your time. Yeah, like respect the governing of the world.
[00:41:06] Speaker B: Spread the gospel in jail or something.
[00:41:07] Speaker A: That's right. And recognize there is a reality for your behavior. There is again, moral agency that is a part of image bearing is you do bear responsibility for your actions. And that's one of the things that is so dangerous about again, the waters, the cultural waters in which we swim.
We want to remove responsibility for so many things. And you see it in small ways financially, parenting, parenting. I mean, the list goes on and on. And then somehow you get into a court case and we want to remove responsibility for a murderer.
And guys, that's not what the Bible prescribes for us.
[00:41:47] Speaker C: Yeah, right. It's the idea.
And I don't want to appeal to this movement much. Nathan might, but it is the idea of toxic empathy.
I feel so bad.
So she should walk free. We feel bad because she was in postpartum psychosis. So she doesn't deserve justice.
Those two things don't need to fight. We can feel bad that she was mentally ill and actually in a horrible state. She was. You could even say maybe that the mental health system failed her and that'd be a fine claim.
But those two things don't have to fight. You can say all those things together. The mental health system may have failed her. Yeah, we feel bad that she was in a horrible state. No one wants. Christians don't want people to feel depressed. It's terrible. Right. But also, she killed three children. And those two things are not intention. But culture wants to make us think that.
[00:42:35] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:42:35] Speaker C: Empathy is the highest. It's the highest virtue in culture.
[00:42:40] Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, this is why we don't let people be their own judge in a criminal case. Right. Because everybody would set themselves free.
[00:42:46] Speaker A: Right.
[00:42:46] Speaker B: Because that's what empathy literally is like. I mean, that's what it means is to see yourself as someone else. Look, I did a one sentence definition there.
So Right.
When you put yourself in them, in their mental state, it's like the idea is see yourself as them and then of course you're going to end up going, well, I can understand why they did it or why it stinks or whatever. So we go, you know, you don't get to be your own judge. Right.
There's an appeal to true justice that others have to measure against because you're going to measure yourself wrongly.
[00:43:18] Speaker A: Right again, here's an acid test for us. And I mean, I feel this even when I ask it.
Would we have identical sympathy if Patrick Clancy had been the perpetrator of the murder of his children? If he had actually committed that crime? And would there be the same level of empathy? I can even say this personally, for me, absolutely not. I empathize more with a mother who is distressed and wrestling with that kind of an issue. Like my brain wants to show more kindness to that. It just does.
That doesn't mean, though, that that's the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is to again, say, hey, murder cannot be expunged. We can't, by God's own standard, we can't simply just say that this is okay in part because we're not God.
[00:44:17] Speaker C: Yeah, by God's own standard.
And if you want to have any sort of Society that's livable, healthy, free, and flourishing. You can't justify murder.
[00:44:29] Speaker A: And so, again, to just show how much we've been affected by this, if I would come down harder on Patrick.
Why? What causes that?
What is that? I would dare say, guys, that's feminism.
[00:44:42] Speaker C: Yeah.
[00:44:42] Speaker B: It's the streams of feminism.
[00:44:43] Speaker A: Absolutely.
And, you know, Nathan, you brought up a question that I thought was fantastic.
Once again, would we feel the same way if she had gone next door and murdered three other children that were not her own? Would we still have the same level of empathy?
Again, there's something about the current waters we swim in that tell us no. A mother has certain rights.
That is just. It's a strange thing.
[00:45:13] Speaker B: It is. I know. It's amazing, because when you ask that question, I think I can't speak for everybody, but most folks go, oh, yeah, no, if I'm honest with myself, I would respond differently if she had gone next door and murdered her neighbor's three children and left her three children alone. Right, right. You would have a different kind of visceral response to that, and that reveals something, because murder is murder.
[00:45:35] Speaker C: It is.
[00:45:36] Speaker A: It is.
[00:45:36] Speaker B: But we've imbibed. And honestly, this is why I say that abortion is the sacrament of feminism, because we've imbibed this. This, like, live your truth and don't let anything hold you back. Things so horrifically that, like what you said, it includes if, you know, if your children have to pay the ultimate price for that, so be it. And again, I'm not saying that every person listening to this thinks that exactly, but that. That's kind of.
It's. Well, if you tinted. I think what you're saying, the way that we think about it, if you
[00:46:08] Speaker C: take the philosophy of feminism to its radical end, that is the end.
[00:46:13] Speaker B: Right?
[00:46:14] Speaker A: Yeah.
And to help us with this point, I think just to recognize this, that empathy becomes excessive when your pity for the perpetrator makes the victims disappear, when your inclination is to say, well, let's not talk about the kids. Let's set that off to the side.
That's a problem.
Those are three lives made in the image of God that are equally as valuable as Lindsay Clancy's lives or life. And so, again, that's not a biblical rationale or a way to approach this. And I think that's one of the things that when I think about this situation, again, for all of us, myself included, and I want us to tread lightly, we're going to give an account for every idle word we speak.
And so if we are defending her or condemning her. And it doesn't line up with what God thinks.
We're going to give an account for that.
And so I just think, like, there's so many opinions that have been thrown around and so many Christians that get so heated and so angry and want to, you know, do this or do that. And I just think it would be better for us either to not talk about it or to make sure when we do talk about it that what we're saying actually does line up with what God's word is teaching us. Because at the end of the day, Pastor Michael's opinion does not matter and neither does anyone who's listening. What matters is what the Lord has said. And so, again, truth is our source. And we want to say that this God's word is our standard of truth has to be, otherwise it is every man for himself.
[00:47:50] Speaker B: Yeah. And again, I think that really is the goal of this conversation right here is like I said at the beginning, we're not sitting on the jury. We're not the judge. Like, you have legal experts, you, nor I nor anyone have any impact on this case. Like, your social media post isn't going to set Lindsay free or give her the death penal or whatever. Right. It's not. So that's why I think it's good to go. What's the value of thinking through this? And it's to help surface things that we might be holding that we need to go, oh, where did I get that?
I think that it actually is a really, really important exercise. And that's what I think is, again, the value of this for most people, particularly for Christians. Am I holding a biblical worldview on this or am I holding a cultural, culturally informed, postmodern, feminist worldview on this?
[00:48:39] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:48:39] Speaker B: And again, you obviously know by my question there what I think a lot of folks are holding.
[00:48:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:48:45] Speaker B: So to get kind of to move to the last phase of what we wanted to talk about regarding mental health, some things that we are okay saying, I will say, when people look at this case, it is particularly shocking when someone kills their own children. Right. For example, somebody, you know, again, you think of all the different ways murder happens. And there's something, I mean, we literally have a term for it. Right. Infanticide. Right. Like there's a unique term for killing your own children. Because it is so stunning when someone does that. And I think, because it's so stunning, I think that's actually the thing that it makes us uncomfortable just being like, yeah, well, it was murder again, some folks. Yeah, well, it was Murder. Murder's murder. And so, you know, throw the book at her. You start looking for external outs, Right. I. At least to me, I think that as I'm trying to think about why do folks want to go, well, I don't think she's guilty because what's the. Why do you not want to think she's guilty? And I think it's partly because you're. So there's something so shocking about a woman killing her own children. Right. We think about, like, crimes of passion, right. You know, man catches his wife with another man and he shoots the guy. Like, again, there's all. I mean, the Bible actually even talks about some of these different types of things, right. And you have some explanation for some of those. But when a woman kills her own children, you want to externalize. This is what. Going back to your point about agency, you actually want to remove her agency right there so that she's not blamed, even though in any instance that she does, like, if she's being. Was a successful RN at her hospital, we'd give her all her agency, Right. Like, you go, girl, get out there and, you know, have your agency and be great. Except whenever she kills the children, she doesn't have any sort of. I'm saying. I think that's the impetus whenever folks are looking for an out. And when they point to the mental health thing and go, she's not guilty. Because I think sometimes it's. Because what happened is so stunning.
[00:50:50] Speaker A: Absolutely.
[00:50:50] Speaker B: That it makes you look for a way out in your own mind. Right. Like, I can't. Anyways, that's just my thought on that.
[00:50:56] Speaker A: Yeah. Well, and I would agree with that. I think, you know, in terms of, you know, just a framework as we continue to move forward, you know, the Lord calls us in Micah 6, 8, to do three things. To do justice, which again, means there is objective moral truth.
To love mercy or to love kindness, depending on how you translate, and to walk humbly with God.
And I do think that is a really helpful moment, again, for us, is to have some humility and to say, whatever the outcome is, this is a tragedy.
This is something to weep over.
This mother is paralyzed. Her children are dead.
This is horrific. A father is without his children, divorced.
This is as ugly as it gets.
And so whatever is happening really going forward is not a thing to celebrate.
It's not a thing to celebrate if she is condemned, it's not a thing to celebrate if she's acquitted. It's a thing to mourn in any case, and to recognize evil has happened here.
And to say that as Christians, like, this whole thing is not good.
There's not one good thing that's happened here. And so from there, to seek justice,
[00:52:29] Speaker B: though, like, to be sober minded in seeking justice, it doesn't mean you're glib or gleeful about it. But like, yeah, we're not gonna go
[00:52:35] Speaker C: have a parade if she gets.
[00:52:36] Speaker B: Yeah, but you go, but it is good when justice is done. Right. That's. Again, I don't think you weren't saying that. I'm just.
[00:52:43] Speaker A: But I am saying I think a part of the empathy that is appropriate for Christians to have is to mourn this, that it is appropriate for sin.
[00:52:50] Speaker B: Yeah, It's a result of sin.
[00:52:51] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:52:51] Speaker B: This is horrific sin, like working its way out and in horrific ways. I mean, the first sin. Right. Like murder between family members. Right.
Or second sin. Yes. First sin outside the garden.
[00:53:01] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:53:01] Speaker C: Yes.
[00:53:03] Speaker B: So, yeah. Anyways, continue your thought. I didn't mean to. No.
[00:53:05] Speaker A: But. So I think, you know, Micah 6, 8 is just a framework to start with, is, where is justice here?
Am I being merciful? Am I pursuing that in some way? And do I have a humility about me where I'm not just going to say my ways?
[00:53:20] Speaker B: Right.
[00:53:21] Speaker A: And everyone's just an idiot that doesn't think the way I think.
I think Genesis 9, 6. Again, human life has value because we bear God's image. Romans 13:1 4. The governing authorities do bear the sword and do exist to punish evil, like they do exist for, frankly, this kind of situation.
There's a reason the Lord did not entrust that to the church. He entrusted it to the governing authorities on purpose.
And then I do think it's interesting, and this is a whole other rabbit trail that we could go down, but Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19 do recognize intent and differing degrees of culpability. And so it is possible for one Christian to think, hey, I think she should be not necessarily acquitted in terms of the murder, but acquitted in terms of, you know, the punishments or whatever, however you want to say that. I'm saying I'm getting my terms wrong there. But the point being, I realize she killed the children. I do think a Christian could say, maybe she was insane. Let's put her in an institution.
I think another Christian could say, nope, I think she deserves the death penalty.
We can all have an opinion about this. But at the end of the day, once the court makes the decision, Christians understand that's the decision and move forward and trust the situation into God's hands would be I guess a thought. As we move towards wrapping up, what do you guys think about final thoughts?
[00:54:58] Speaker C: Yeah, I would just, of course, I think all those biblical points are fantastic.
Swimming in a world of craziness.
And one of the things I just, I often encourage Christians about is, well, forget about my encouragement, consider Solomon's encouragement to seriously consider the counsel that you are allowing to enter your head into your heart.
And in that case, I'm explicitly talking about social media.
There's all kinds of talking pundits and all of a sudden expert toxicologist and expert forensic scientist and expert criminologist.
And actually they're just a college dropout who knows nothing.
[00:55:45] Speaker A: Right.
[00:55:47] Speaker C: And they're stuck in their parents basement, but all of a sudden they're an influence.
[00:55:51] Speaker B: Opinions abound. Yeah, yeah.
[00:55:54] Speaker C: And, and the reality is, you know, like this is the world we're in. We are in the attention economy.
They know that they put this case on live TV because they knew it would capture our attention. And the fact of the matter is Christians are not meant to consume the amount of content and especially in these kind of matters. I mean even not that long ago in modernity, 15, 20 years ago, you probably would have had no idea that this case was even out there.
[00:56:23] Speaker B: Sure.
[00:56:25] Speaker C: But they've put it out there for a certain reason.
And we ought to just really carefully consider, forget about who we trust, forget about who we emote with. But is God's word our counsel? And is the people that love Jesus and are around us that know Jesus, are they speaking into this? Not just the TikTok talking head.
[00:56:48] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I'll let one of you guys have the final word. But I just, for me, I would just say, you know, mental illness is real.
Moral agency and human dignity are gifts of God and those can't be denied, even in this case. And then the last thing is just murder demands justice.
Those three things are all true at the same time.
[00:57:16] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm glad you said that because that was what I was going to start with. You can say those things and they be true, that the person could be mentally ill. Now I think, I think that gets over diagnosed a lot. That's a whole different conversation. Right. But like we can say that people have, that there are people with genuine deep mental problems. And we can also say that someone who murders three children should be held accountable. You can say both of those things. And even someone who murders three children and has mental illness should be held accountable. I'm okay saying those things. So I think my encouragement to folks on this topic would be to do something like what we've been doing here with it going to kind of what your point was, not consume, not lay in bed and consume hours upon hours of content about this.
I think it's okay to understand what happened, think about it and even discuss it, but don't allow this thing to create division among people with whom you should be, you know, like creating, you know, like love, unity in the body of Christ. And so it's good, though, to do what we've done, which is to talk about it, think about it. If you can have a measured discussion and debate, I think that's okay. I think that's good with people. But if you go, this is going to make me rage or this is going to make, you know, family member or whatever, it's okay to also be like, we're not going to talk about that. Yeah, like that's, that's all right. Because this is a thing that, that ought not be divisive among believers.
However, I do think it is an important catalyst to talk about some of the frameworks that believers have adopted, which is what we're trying to do. So again, I think that would be my admonition, is use this as an opportunity to consider what have I believed, why have I believed it? And to discuss that really honestly with other folks. And then beyond that, don't use it as just a weapon to go blow apart relationships that frankly, in the social media age are already over. Fragile.
That's my final thought further up and further in.
[00:59:27] Speaker C: We'll see you next time on Word and Flesh.
[00:59:39] Speaker B: Sam.
[01:00:31] Speaker C: Jesus, jesus ra.
