Breakpoint

Science is supposed to be objective, an undeniable source for truth not subject to fads or fashion. The phrases “scientists say” or “the science is settled” is supposed to inspire hushed awe and open ears. Scientists are supposed to serve as arbiters of truth, at least on questions within their fields of expertise, able to settle disputes and sort fact from fiction. Many progressives, especially, employ the phrase “the science says” to silence disagreement about everything from climate policy to gender ideology. “The science,” at least in certain circles, is an authority appealed to in order to end debate and dismiss critics of favored policies. Increasingly, the theory that science is a neutral arbiter or source of truth looks shaky, especially when scientific publications openly announce their commitment to ideology over evidence. Bell Curve author Charles Murray recently tweeted an editorial published by the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Human Behaviour. Murray (who is no stranger to what happens to those who publish politically incorrect findings) highlighted a section in which the editors announced they will be censoring scientific results that do not conform to a favored political narrative. Specifically, the editors reserved the right to amend, refuse, or retract “[c]ontent that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, [or] (dis)ability …” They also reserved the right to censor content that “undermines — or could be reasonably perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of” any of these categories, as well as to refuse submissions that are “exclusionary of a diversity of voices …” It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how language this sweeping could be used. For instance, studies that find children do best in homes with their biological mother and father could be “reasonably perceived” by the editors of Nature Human Behaviour to suggest the “inherent inferiority” of same-sex parents. Research that finds female athletes are disadvantaged when competing against biological men could “undermine ... the rights and dignities” of transgender opponents. A study that finds little girls do better in societies that don’t practice female genital mutilation could be censored for its “assumption of inherent … cultural superiority.” As Murray tweeted, “It is hard to exaggerate the scientific insanity this represents.” Even psychologist and science author Steven Pinker, no friend of Christians or religious conservatives, slammed the journal, tweeting: “Nature Human Behavior [sic] is no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed … (how do we know articles have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness)?” It’s a good question, and one more people should be asking. Increasingly, the scientific enterprise itself is looking shaky, not only because of political correctness but because the practices on which science depends — peer review and replication — are breaking down. Consider an analysis published in the journal Science last year in which behavioral economists at the University of California found that the least reliable studies are the ones other scientists cite the most. This team analyzed over 20,000 papers in some of the top psychology, economy, and science journals, and found that “studies that failed to replicate since their publication were on average 153 times more likely to be cited” than studies that did — mostly because their findings were more “interesting.” And this problem was found to be worst in leading journals Nature and Science. The takeaway here is not that science is bad. On the contrary, science is a gift of God, made possible in how He made the world and His image bearers. Science has made the world immeasurably richer, and the world arguably owes a debt for these riches to Christian assumptions and pioneers. However, scientists and science editors are human and just as vulnerable to bad ideas and dangerous ideologies as other humans. Reform can happen within a field of knowledge. Thus, science can regain its authority as a source of truth and public good, rather than propaganda. Christians in the sciences have an especially important role to play, as voices protesting ideologically loaded conclusions and as examples of integrity and objectivity. Until that reform happens, anything announced with “the science says,” especially on intensely politically charged issues, should be greeted with suspicion. As Pinker said, we have a right to know whether their claims “have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness.”

Recently (and finally), the United Nations has released a report condemning China’s treatment of Uyghurs. Given China’s clout within the UN, its strenuous PR and lobbying campaigns, and its ability to intimidate scholars and witnesses, the report’s release was delayed for months.   Finally, in the final few minutes of UN human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s term, the report was released. The report strongly condemned China’s actions and called for “urgent attention” from the UN, validating years of warnings by watchdogs, observers, and activists worldwide.   This one report by itself may not change the terrible situation on the ground for the Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang province, but nothing will change without first telling the truth. As one article in the Associated Press noted, “That the report was released was in some ways as important as its contents.”  Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, was himself a witness to the internment of untold millions in the former USSR. He put it this way, “The simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood.… One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.” 

Religious liberty is a human right. So why are American courts so confused?   In recent months, American courts have continued to grapple with the size, scope, and even the definition of religious freedom. For Christians who believe that religious liberty for all is a public good, there’s good news and bad news.  The good news includes the decision from the Fifth Circuit two weeks ago in the case of Franciscan Alliance, a group of Catholic hospitals and doctors that sued the federal government in 2016. Rules issued from the Biden Administration would have forced doctors within Franciscan Alliance to perform so-called “transition surgeries” on patients with gender dysphoria, as well as provide abortions for patients who requested them. Lawyers for the hospital system argued that these procedures are violations of the oath doctors take to “do no harm” to their patients, and therefore a violation of the doctors’ religious freedom. Thankfully, the Fifth Circuit respected Supreme Court precedent and ruled in favor of Franciscan Alliance.   The bad news includes a case out of New York, in which a trial court ruled that Yeshiva University, a Jewish school in New York City, must allow an LGBTQ club to establish on campus. The university argued the club’s mission openly violated the school’s religious beliefs about sexuality. In a particularly bizarre ruling, a judge sided with the LGBTQ club by reasoning that Yeshiva University is not a religious institution. “Yeshiva” is the Hebrew word for “a school that studies the Talmud,” or ancient rabbinic writings on Scripture. Still, the judge cited Yeshiva University’s charter, which refers to the school as an “educational institution,” as evidence that the school therefore cannot be religious.   The question at the heart of each of these cases is the same: What does it mean to be religious?  Though it is good news for everyone, doctors and patients, that Franciscan Alliance will not be forced to mutilate bodies in the name of “transgender medicine,” the judge in this case ruled explicitly that the government could not violate these doctors’ religious beliefs. It is not good news that the reality that men and women are different is being denied, or that bodies are being mutilated and called “healthcare,” or that opposing being involved is reduced to a “religious belief.” In the same way, the idea that we should not take the life of a child in or out of a mother’s womb should be obvious, not reduced to merely “religious.”  In one sense, every law is religious in the sense that they are predicated on some view of the universe, human nature, and morality. They assume that certain things ought to be done and others ought not to be done. Everything we do, including where we work, what we value, and how we raise our kids, is built upon moral beliefs about the world, whether Christian or not. Even if we don’t always act consistently with those beliefs, religious liberty ensures the right to call upon these views inside and outside of Church, synagogue, mosque, or Twitter.   In our culture, however, certain views are designated “religious” and others are not. Therefore, the “religious” views are considered biased exceptions to be tolerated. In fact, progressive judges and administrations often deem policy positions they don’t like as “religious” as a way of suggesting they should not be taken seriously in the public square. In other words, taking innocent human life and mutilating healthy bodies are presented as the “obviously right” views, and opposing these horrors is dismissed as “religious.”   All of which says a lot about the moral status of our culture. Further, it misunderstands the meaning of “religious” and leads to obvious violations of religious liberty. Christian doctors within the Franciscan Alliance cannot leave their worldviews at the operating room door. Yeshiva University doesn’t stop being religious when it educates. In fact, it educates because it is religious.   The Supreme Court, at least currently, recognizes this reality, but some lower courts do not. Thus, the absurd ruling that claims Yeshiva University is not religious because it educates, or the one in Colorado which held that a Christian school chaplain wasn’t in a “religious position,” or the lower court ruling from a few years ago that attempted to force a group of Catholic nuns to pay for abortion and contraception.   In such a conflicted time, Christians must, more and more, live like Christians. We must compellingly demonstrate that the resurrected Christ we worship in one building one morning a week shapes how we live and act in any other building every other day of the week. And we continue to defend religious liberty as a public good for all people.  About this, the U.S. Constitution is clear. Hopefully, our nation’s courts will gain clarity too. 

Recently, the world learned of the death of Mikhail Gorbachev. While living to age 91 is an achievement for anyone, it’s a historical exception for a dictator to live 30 years past his downfall. Gorbachev did, having survived from when the first waves of American pop culture entered his homeland decades ago to when those same waves receded in renewed hostility.  Gorbachev’s legacy is, to say the least, complicated. His former subjects in Eastern Europe will likely shed few tears, his former enemies in the West have praised that he chose peace in the face of imperial collapse, and his fellow Russians mourn his role in their nation’s lost status on the world stage. The last leader of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was once one of two most powerful men in the world. He died without the acclaim and power he once commanded.  His death reminds us that no matter how great, death comes to us all. We do not control the timing nor manner of our demise. All of that is in God’s hands. We can only strive to live lives worth remembering and emulating. 

The Queen has died.   When those words were heard and repeated, over and over last Thursday, people around the world knew immediately which queen. In fact, few are alive today who can remember a time when she was not on Britain’s throne. She lived to 96, not only the longest reigning monarch in British history but the second longest reigning monarch in all of history, surpassed only by King Louis XIV of France, the “Sun King.” Among the many anecdotes that put her life in historical context, Elizabeth II was queen for a full third of the existence of the United States of America as a nation.   When Elizabeth ascended to power, Winston Churchill was the prime minister. Just two days before she died, in a final act of royal duty, Elizabeth received a 15th person into that high office. When she began her rule in 1952, there was a British Empire, and not just in name. Though every nation within the empire would gain independence, she remained head of state of a dozen of them, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other smaller countries around the world.  Elizabeth’s historic tenure as queen might have never happened, except for a domestic turmoil that has never quite seemed to leave the House of Windsor alone. Her father, George VI, assumed the throne only because her uncle abdicated it for an illicit romance. Her sister’s temperament did not, shall we say, “fit” her royal duties. Her eldest son, now King Charles III, entered a loveless marriage in the midst of his own extramarital affairs, while her second son ruined his place in the world by falling in with Jeffrey Epstein. Her grandson Prince Harry is full of bitter words and accusations about the royal family.  In this way, the royal family was a reflection of changes seen across the Western world during the Queen’s reign. Marriage rates in the U.K. have dropped by double digits in the last few decades, and divorces have increased by several orders of magnitude. While the Britain she inherited in her youth famously stood up for liberty and democracy against tyranny, corporate and government powers often enforce conformity and silence. Weekly church attendance in Britain has dropped to less than a million each week in a population of nearly 70 million. Add in technological change, war, globalization, populism, the rise and fall of global powers, and it may be that the Queen’s most remarkable achievement was preserving the monarchy as a legitimate institution amidst the flux and chaos of the last few decades.   As one who could, as Kipling once put it, “walk with Kings, nor lose the common touch,” she played the part of elegant empress, with an impish sense of humor and a delightfully ordinary demeanor. As such, Queen Elizabeth was, in many ways, an always-relevant anachronism. She was an incarnation of G.K. Chesterton’s call for a “democracy of the dead” or C.S. Lewis’ warning against “chronological snobbery.” In an age that confuses change as progress, her life was a reminder that certain truths and duties do not change with the times—eternals that are not subject to our whims or imaginations—but are revealed, at least in part, through the accumulated wisdom of the ages.  In fact, “duty” is the word most commonly used to describe Elizabeth II, as if she inherited her father’s sense of it along with the throne. As Bloomberg’s Adrian Woolridge noted on Twitter, “The Queen grasped Edmund Burke’s great dictum that, for a true conservative, the point of change is to stay the same, at least in the things that really matter. Monarchy is a restraint on modernity or it is nothing.”  She was barely an adult when she declared, “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” Years later, she reflected back on that promise, “When I was 21, I pledged my life to the service of our people, and I asked for God's help to make good that vow. Although that vow was made in my salad days, when I was green in judgement, I do not regret, or retract, one word of it.”  There are few contentions more despised today than the idea that our rights must be balanced by our duties, but Elizabeth thought of the crown as a calling, a part of something greater than herself. How she carried out those duties in an ever-changing world points to a commitment that goes beyond tradition or even the monarchy. As she put it herself, monarchs do not lead troops into battle or rule from on high anymore. So, she committed to lead by serving, which is of course the way of Jesus, who said the greatest among us are servants. In many of her annual Christmas radio messages, she pointed to Christ as the One she sought to follow and emulate. Leading by serving is one of the things that the New Testament calls the “fruit” of faith.  Having reached the end of her era, it’s difficult to imagine what the monarchy will become. As Jake Meador from Mere Orthodoxy observed, “After she and Benedict XVI pass, I think European Christendom will be conclusively gone from this world. Something else will come and God will continue to work. But the loss is still immense.”   Indeed, it is, but what makes a person “great” has not changed. Around the world, followers of Christ are living faithful lives, committed to what God has called them to, in truth and service. Their stage may not be as global or their mistakes as public, but their lives point to the Sovereign who sits on the throne of heaven and earth and whose kingdom shall have no end. That faithfulness is, in God’s economy, greatness.  

Last Saturday was World Suicide Prevention Day, a time to remember that suicide is a growing problem. In the U.S., it increased by 30% from 2000-2018, and that was before COVID. In 2019, it was the second leading cause of death for ages 10-34.   Christians aren’t excluded. LifeWay research has shown that 32% of Protestant church-going respondents had a family member or “close acquaintance” die by suicide.   Because of this great need, Colson Educators has teamed with Dr. Matthew Sleeth, a former emergency room physician and chief of hospital medical staff, to offer a free online course called Hope Always, based on the title of his book Hope Always: How to Be a Force for Life in a Culture of Suicide. This course, which you can take for free at any time, will help you know how to talk with loved ones about the difficult topic of suicide. It offers scientifically grounded information with biblically based theology to start a conversation about mental health and how the Church can offer light and hope.   Go to courses.colsoneducation.org/hopealways to register for this course today. 

Recently, an impressive development in embryology was reported by the Israeli Weizmann Institute of Science. Using only stem cells, without the presence of sperm, eggs, or even a womb, researchers successfully created functioning mouse embryos, complete with beating hearts, blood circulation, brain tissue and rudimentary digestive systems. Carolyn Johnson in The Washington Post described the discovery as “a fascinating, potentially fraught realm of science that could one day be used to create replacement organs for humans.”  For the more than 100,000 people currently waiting for a life-saving organ donation, that kind of breakthrough would indeed seem like a miracle. However, since scientists are still years away from creating human organs in a lab for the purpose of transplant, the technology raises serious ethical questions, none of which should be taken lightly.   One of these questions is, in fact, an old one. Do the promises of embryonic stem cell research justify it? While some stem cells can be harvested from a variety of non-embryonic sources such as bone marrow, others are harvested from so-called “unused” embryos that have been donated to science. The lives of these tiny, undeveloped human beings are taken in the process.  For context, the research conducted by the Weizmann Institute uses embryonic stem cells. Though, for the time being, this implies only embryonic stem cells harvested from mice, the move to human research would involve the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos and involve tissue derived from already living human beings.  The Christian stance on when life begins is the same as the science. Human life begins at conception, and every single human life is worthy of protection. If we would not take the life of a born child in our research for a cure for some medical condition, neither the anonymity of an embryo nor the confines of a laboratory justify doing the same thing in the process of embryonic stem cell research.   Science is a process of trial and error, but we should never employ “trial and error” with the lives of thousands of human beings, in particular human beings who cannot consent to our actions. A rule of thumb is this. If you wouldn’t try an experiment on an adult or small child, don’t do it to human embryos at any stage.   The breakthrough at the Weizmann Institute, however, takes this old debate a step further. On one hand, lead researcher Dr. Jacob Hanna was quick to clarify that the goal is not to make complete, living organisms of mice or any other species. “We are really facing difficulties making organs,” he said, “and in order to make stem cells become organs, we need to learn how the embryo does that.”  Given the history of science, including the last chapter involving breathless promises of what embryonic stem cell research would bring, the grandiose predictions of scientists should be taken with at least a grain of salt. The process of growing organs for mice, for example, involved the creation of entire embryos. Should the technology be perfected in mice, what ethical or legal limits are there to prevent the creation of synthetic human embryos for the purpose of harvesting their organs?  Our first concern should be what these embryos would be created for. The answer is, inevitably, “science,” devoid of any consideration for human purpose, relationships, worth, or dignity as equal members of the human species. All societies that treat people as a means of scientific advancement, instead of infinitely valuable ends in-and-of themselves, have a track record of perpetrating atrocities.   A second concern is what these embryos would be deprived of. Though not all do, every human should enter the world with the love and commitment of their biological mom and dad. The very design of human development suggests this, and societies have long recognized that those born without these relationships have had something priceless taken from them. Creating children from cloning or stem cells intentionally makes them orphans, ripping them from the vital context of parental relationship. It is a grave injustice.  Bringing children into the world as a product of pure science without the possibility of relationship with their biological parents or relatives is enough an ethical consideration to oppose such research, but we should also consider the implications of recklessly creating humans for future experimentation and of dismantling them to see how their components work.   Science is, in many ways, blind to what should be ethical bright lines. Creating organs for transplant in order to save lives is a worthy goal. But such work should only proceed in an ethical manner, one which does not require the death of other distinct, valuable, human beings. Unfortunately, such ideas have not shaped the society we live in today. 

John and Maria discuss the life and legacy of Queen Elizabeth II and her longstanding sense of service to her nation. Afterwards, they stress the correlation—not the causation—between deaths of despair and decline in blue laws, laws against commerce on Sunday. They end by touching on commentaries from this week, in particular one highlighting the rebuttal of a false narrative that the religious right was founded in racism.

Yesterday, after the world had learned that her family had been called to her side, Queen Elizabeth II, the longest reigning monarch in British history, died at age 96. It’s simply impossible to articulate just how much the world, Britain, the British Empire, Western civilization, and the monarchy changed during her reign.  Many Americans were fascinated by her and the royal family, as demonstrated in the popularity of shows like The Crown. She seemed to navigate a changing world by not changing, something that at times stabilized and at other times infuriated the British people.  Perhaps the most consistent features of her tenure, which seemed out of step with the modern world, were her sense of duty and her consistent expression of faith and religious observance. Her annual Christmas messages reflected theology that was mostly orthodox and a faith in Jesus Christ that seemed personal. Convinced that Divine Providence had brought her to the throne, she seemed to see the crown as a calling and not an entitlement. In both of these things, her death marks the end of an era. 

A few weeks back, Twitter banned a user for violent language. The offending tweet was, “I will out sword drill any Christian man.” For anyone not familiar with evangelical subculture, a “sword drill” has nothing to do with blades. It’s a game to see who can find a particular Bible passage first. Had the protectors of Twitter taken the time to investigate or, even better, had some Christians on their staff to ask, they may have spared themselves the ridicule which rightfully followed.   Unfortunately, it’s a habit of academic and media circles to either not understand or not take evangelicalism’s claims for itself at face value. Sexual ethics, we are told, are novelties, due more to patriarchy than anything Jesus taught. The priority that evangelicals place on the home, family, and gender norms is more the product of 20th-century cowboy movies than any enduring truths about men and women. And, most commonly, political involvement by conservative Christians is nothing more than a naked grasp for power and maintaining the status quo.   Recently, a handful of political commentators have claimed that the rise of the so-called Religious Right was rooted more in racism than in concern for the unborn or the spiritual fate of our nation. Though conservative Christians claim that the 1970’s-era increase in political action was birthed in opposition to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision and removal of prayer and Christian symbols in public schools, it was really about segregation. White Christians did not care about saving the lives of unborn children as much as they wanted to make sure their kids did not have to attend school with African Americans.  This contention is now part of most formal analyses of evangelical culture, including from mainline and progressive Christianity. As one recent book put it, “In the end…what changed their mind wasn’t abortion or school prayer, but tax-exempt status for segregated schools.”   Jonathan Whitehead, writing at The Gospel Coalition, dates this story to a book published in 2006 which claimed that conservative Christians got into politics in response to the 1975 action by the IRS against the (overtly) segregationist policies of Bob Jones University, a view the school later recanted.  Whitehead goes on to argue that this supposed smoking gun turns out, in reality, to be an urban legend. Rather than being agitated that the IRS had attacked segregationism, conservative Christians found that the Feds were using the situation with Bob Jones University as a pretext to move against other religious schools that weren’t segregationist. This was at a time when school choice and homeschooling were far from established options, and anyone who did not comply with state schools was suspect.  The segregation narrative fails in other ways, as well, most notably in timing. One of the first political action groups expressly formed by evangelicals in 1972 supported Democratic Senator McGovern’s ultimately failed presidential campaign. Christians, especially Roman Catholics, were already organizing for political action in the wake of Roe in 1973, and evangelical standard bearers like Christianity Today were talking about abortion before Roe and speaking out against segregation even earlier than that.  In the end, the racist history rumor is an example of “nut-picking,” when the worst-case example of a vast movement is held up as normative while any example to the contrary is ignored. It only contributes to our culture’s increasingly uncivil discourse but is convenient for rhetorical purposes. Throughout his career, the late, great Michael Cromartie declared that there needed to be a dramatic improvement in the relationship and understanding between secularly minded Americans and their religious neighbors. “We’re like an anthropological project for them,” he once said, summarizing the approach of secular elites to religious believers as “We’ll go study these people, because I’ve never met one.” Without any first-hand knowledge about the intricacies of Christian culture, or at times, having an axe to grind for being raised evangelical, too many are quick to assign the worst of motives to Christian actions and words.  Billions of people rely on the professionalism of journalists and academics to discover and share the truth. The truth is never served by a convenient story that happens to neatly coincide with the popular narratives of the day. If pundits and professors are going to continue to regain any authority to speak into our lives, they’ve got to do better.