Breakpoint

A new poll, commissioned by Summit Ministries with national survey firm McLaughlin & Associates, suggests that there is a gap between what people believe and what they're willing to say. Some 64% of those polled believe that "transgenderism is not a healthy human condition." However, while 30% indicated they are willing to speak out on the issue, another 34% say they stay silent on the issue so as "to not offend others." Measuring public opinion is notoriously tricky. At the same time, it's important to know that despite headlines and popular perception, the triumph of trans ideology is not inevitable. In reality, most Americans do understand the categories of biological sex and feel uncomfortable foisting harmful ideology on children. This means that what we say and do on this issue matters. Os Guinness made this point on a recent episode of the Upstream podcast. Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists, but we're more susceptible to the whims of the most vocal popular opinion than we realize. The loudest voices often cow people into silence, but Christians, with courage and gentleness, must speak up. Along the way, we may just win some people over.

Recently, U.S. House Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez huffed on Twitter, "For people who say, 'I believe it's a life,' some people don't. Our Jewish brothers and sisters, they are able to have an abortion according to their faith!" The central point AOC is trying to make in the video is one that is on repeat these days, as America awaits the Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case. Not all religions agree on when life begins, so therefore, the pro-life movement intends to impose Christian morality on everyone else. "When does life begin?" asked an NPR article a few weeks ago. "Religions don't agree." In the piece, author Sarah McCammon also pointed to Judaism as the obvious counter to Christianity. Of course, it's not all that surprising that various religions would hold differing views on matters of significance. After all, religions don't agree about whether God exists, who God is, how we would know, whether Jesus is God, and whether we are God. And that's just disagreements about God. Expand the discussion to morality, heaven, hell, sin, and salvation, and we'd be here all day. Even so, the constant reference to Judaism as the counter to "fundamentalist Christianity" (as AOC put it in the video) led me to wonder whether it is really the case that Judaism supports a woman's right to abort her child. Thankfully, the eminent historian, Dr. Glenn Sunshine, is part of the Colson Center editorial team. In summary, here's what he discovered. Though Jews today differ tremendously on abortion (unsurprisingly, since they also differ tremendously on all manner of theological, liturgical, moral, and political issues), historically, the position is much clearer. Except to save the life of the mother, Judaism has historically opposed abortion. The Jewish position goes back to Genesis 9:6. Because this is the record of God's instructions to Noah after the Flood, many Jewish scholars have understood this verse to be binding on all humanity. While modern Christian Bibles such as the ESV translate the verse as, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in the image of God," Jewish scholars who comment on this passage suggest that the text actually says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man within man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man." Rabbis who understood the text to read "man within man" believe that this teaching refers to an unborn child. Thus, these scholars argue for a universal prohibition of abortion for all of Noah's descendants, Jews and Gentiles alike. In Jewish law, the unborn is recognized as nearly a full-fledged human being, but not quite. Consequently, it is a sin to deliberately harm a fetus, but doing so did not carry the full penalty associated with harming someone already born. In Exodus, a man who strikes a woman and causes her to give birth was not guilty of murder but had to pay a financial penalty. While this could refer simply to a premature but live birth, to the rabbis this referred to miscarriage or stillbirth. They treated this loss as more of a property crime than a murder, despite the unborn being made in the image of God. Similarly, if a woman's pregnancy threatens her life, the fetus was to be considered "one who is pursuing another" to kill her. Jewish law permits one to kill a pursuer to save the life of the one pursued, and hence abortion is permissible to save the mother's life if directly threatened by the pregnancy. If the baby's head had emerged, however, the baby was given the same moral status as the mother and thus could not be killed. Since Judaism refuses to assign differing values to life, all major Orthodox rabbis authorized to decide matters of Jewish law reject abortion for fetal abnormalities or deformities. Historically, then, Judaism has opposed abortion under normal circumstances but permitted it in a very limited number of situations, primarily the saving of the mother's life. For example, the great medieval rabbi Maimonides permitted abortion only if the pregnancy "definitely and without question" endangered the life of the mother. This was the nearly universal view within Judaism until less than a century ago. Some modern Orthodox Jewish scholars permit abortion to save the life of the mother even if the fetus is not the direct cause of the threat to the mother's life. Others extend permission further to protecting the mother's physical or mental health; some to pregnancies caused by forbidden sexual relations such as adultery, rape, or incest; and some, a minority, to severe and proven fetal abnormalities. These are not universal concessions, however, and most Orthodox Jewish scholars advocate making such decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than establishing general rules for handling these situations. The Conservative branch of Jews, unlike the Orthodox Jews, generally follows a somewhat looser interpretation of these guidelines. In 1983, leading rabbis issued a statement permitting abortion to prevent severe physical or psychological harm to the mother or in the case of extreme fetal abnormalities. These were essentially the same guidelines already adopted by Reform Judaism in 1958, which were then modified in 1985 to specify that psychological reasons included rape and incest. At the same time, however, the Reform rabbis also opposed abortion on demand, abortion for trivial reasons, or abortion because of family hardship. Using Judaism as a counterexample to the Christian position that life is sacred from the moment of conception is a red herring that ignores the real limitations placed on abortion within historic Judaism. While Conservative and Reform Jews support legal access to abortion, they have done so only recently and despite their moral and religious views, not because of them. Regardless, our policies regarding abortion are not to be rooted in various opinions of others, but in the reality of life seen in both God's Word and God's world. In these, we are to embrace the innate dignity of all human beings, no matter how small.

A trend that has troubled researchers for years is the rising "deaths of despair," particularly among blue-collar Americans. Opioids, for example, continue to ravage rural towns across America. According to data drawn from the U.S. Census, "The occupation with the highest suicide rate is Construction and Extraction … nearly 40% higher than the occupation with the second highest suicide rate." In addition to reflecting dangerous work conditions, tough economic prospects, and injury, a deeper problem impacts everyone from teens to seniors, those with degrees and those without: a culture-wide loss of meaning. As J.D. Vance put it in Hillbilly Elegy, "I knew even as a child that there were two separate sets of mores and social pressures. My grandparents embodied one type: old-fashioned, quietly faithful, self-reliant, hardworking." The other mindset Vance describes as "consumerist, isolated, angry, distrustful." The loss of a why leads to struggles with all kinds of whats. Without meaning, America is floundering. The answer is the One who never left us: the One who came that we "may have life, and have it to the full."

The news has been relentless for a while now, but especially these past two weeks. After multiple mass shootings, the nation is grieving. People are angry that nothing seems to change. According to the FBI, there's been a 50% uptick in "active shooting incidents" since last year, and that's not counting the shooting that left 21 dead in Uvalde, Texas. "The two attacks (in Buffalo and Uvalde) are not outliers," announced National Public Radio. "Mass shootings happen in the U.S. with depressing regularity." According to their count, 213 so far this year. A variety of things and people are being blamed: access to guns, social isolation, politicians, talk show hosts, authorities, harmful ideas, and more. Behind any event this tragic will be a number of contributing factors. At the same time, we can no longer think of mass shootings as isolated incidents. They must be understood as indications of social breakdown, along with spiking rates of addiction, overdoses, violent crime, suicide, sexual confusion, and even airplane incidents. Last week, a friend reminded me of Chuck's words. One can easily imagine Chuck Colson extending that analysis to today's issues, "The problem is not gun control, poverty, talk-show hosts, or race. The problem is the breakdown of moral values in American life, and our culture simply cannot respond." In fact, Chuck Colson is not the only thinker to have pointed to the inevitabilities of cultural breakdown. "Great civilizations are not murdered," writes historian Arnold Toynbee. "They commit suicide." In other words, civilizations do not last forever, and there are rules that determine whether or not they have a future. At the recent Wilberforce Weekend, author and social critic Os Guinness stated that we are living in "a civilizational moment": "All the great civilizations reach a moment when they're out of touch with the inspiration that made them. And there's a critical transition moment when they either go towards renewal or down to decline. We are at such a moment, if not already past it. For example, a civilization cannot survive if it is not able to prepare for the future. The dual modern realities of debt, both individually and nationally, and demographics, especially the collapse of birth rates below replacement levels, indicate that as a people we live more for immediate gratification than a strong tomorrow. Of course, in an ultimately meaningless world, there is no sense of tomorrow. Increasingly, studies reveal that our culture suffers from a catastrophic loss of meaning. This only makes sense in a culture already detached from ultimate categories of truth and identity, but that doesn't make it any easier to live here. At the same time, life, even at a time of cultural collapse, does not come to an end. People are born and die. They gather and meet, buy and sell, create and invent. Civilizational collapse is never sudden, but almost always extends over decades and even centuries. What can we do when our civilization is disintegrating around us? First, we must remember that although the challenges of this cultural moment are real, they are never the whole story. The whole story is, instead, the story centered on the person and work of Christ, the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the cosmos. The ending of that story is sure, despite the chaos of the moment. Second, rather than withdraw from the challenges around us, we give whatever good we can to the world. William Wilberforce, for example, not only lobbied against the slave trade but also fought to advance moral values in a corrupt nation. Our best efforts may not succeed, but that's not why we do it. We do it out of love for God and neighbor. Third, we must reject small compromises. Hannah Arendt wrote about the "banality of evil," how in certain cultural moments, evil advances in mundane and seemingly harmless ways. Solomon is an example of this. The last half of 1 Kings 10 reads like a ledger of his remarkable success: extravagant wealth, imported horses and chariots from Egypt, and 700 wives (with accompanying military alliances and treaties). However, Deuteronomy 17 records that, years before, Moses had instructed the Israelites about what their king should not do: He must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, "You shall never return that way again." And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. The author of the Book of Kings knows exactly what he is doing here... He is telling the exploits of Solomon in a way the Israelite readers would understand. Now, whether we're in a time of decline or a time of amazing success like Solomon, the same response is required from God's people. We must be faithful to what He asks us to do, to what He asks us to believe, and to how He instructs us to live. In all of these things, we take this moment as part of our calling. We are here because it is where He wanted us to be. And so we move forward, keeping our eyes on the One who perfects and finishes our faith, Who will bring history to its final culmination.

Os Guinness discusses the civilizational moment for America, where our nation is faced with a choice to turn to renewal or go down the path to decline. This presentation was a part of the Wilberforce Weekend even in May. To register for the digital recordings from this event, visit www.wilberforceweekend.org

"There's already a revolution in abortions happening," wrote Christina Cauterucci in Slate magazine recently, "and the Supreme Court can't touch it." She's referring to so-called "medical" abortions, when pills are used to terminate a child's life at home. As of 2020, this kind of abortion was already the most common, and with the Supreme Court preparing to dismantle Roe v. Wade, it will only become more common. One impact of this will be to drive abortion even farther into the shadows, away from even medical supervision. In fact, during COVID, the FDA allowed abortion pills to be prescribed without a doctor's visit. Now the pandemic is over, but the policy remains. The toll this will have on America's unborn children, their parents, and our national conscience will be significant. Hidden evil always flourishes. That's why we need pro-life legislation that extends to the abortion pill, but passing it won't be easy. The Church will need to be out there, making the case for the dignity of all life, making the path of forgiveness known, offering hope and healing in Christ. And, we'll need courageous lawmakers to take the next step in putting an end to abortion, including by mail.

Today, Memorial Day, I want to share a commentary on Memorial Day from Chuck Colson. Here's Chuck: This Memorial Day, reflect with me on how we should respond to the enormous sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. Memorial Day is when we honor the men and women of our armed services who have made "the supreme sacrifice," who gave their lives for their country. Especially these days, when Memorial Day seems nothing more than a time for cookouts and swim parties, we cannot be reminded often enough about how great a debt we owe our war dead. They gave up their hopes and dreams, families, and friends. They submitted themselves to rigorous discipline—something I understand as a former Marine—24-hour-a-day duty—and placed their lives in great peril. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Their sacrifice should inspire in us a profound sense of gratitude. Gratitude for the freedoms we enjoy, bought with a price. And that gratitude should compel us to lives of service as well. Serving Christ, our neighbor, and yes, our nation. I can't help but recall the brilliant film Saving Private Ryan. James Ryan, now in his seventies, has returned with his family to the military cemetery in Normandy. He visits the grave of Capt. John Miller, the man who, a half a century before, led the mission to retrieve—to save—Pvt. Ryan. At the end of the mission, Miller was fatally wounded. As he lay dying, his final words to Pvt. Ryan were "James. Earn this ... earn it." We then see Ryan kneeling at Capt. Miller's grave, marked by a cross. Ryan, his voice trembling with emotion, says, Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me. Red-eyed, Ryan turns to his wife and says, "Tell me I've led a good life ... tell me I am a good man." With great dignity, she says, "You are." With that, James Ryan salutes the grave of Capt. Miller. I tell this story in greater detail in my book The Good Life, which you can purchase at colsoncenter.org. You see, Pvt. Ryan, out of gratitude for Capt. Miller's sacrifice, did all in his power to live a good life. And Memorial Day is a great time for each of us to look into the mirror ... to examine our own lives. Are we living good lives in gratitude for all those who have sacrificed for us—including our men and women in the military, our families, our friends, and most of all Christ? Are we, like Ryan, kneeling before the cross? Spielberg, a master cinematographer, had to realize the power of this imagery. Are we, out of gratitude, doing our duty for Christ, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ministering to those in prison, in whatever harvest field to which the Lord has called us? Examine your life. And this Memorial Day, at the very least, thank those who have sacrificed for you and those you know who have served in our nation's armed forces. Maybe you'll do what I do when you see a guy or gal in uniform ... at the airport, at the store, wherever ... walk up to them and thank them for their service. And then go and remember Whom it is you serve.

John and Maria discuss the Uvalde shooting, working to understand the role of culture to respond to faltering character. Maria asks John about gun rights, and the pair discuss if freedoms become license and harm people what do we focus on: the conscience or the constable. Then Maria asks John to comment to the recent Southern Baptist Convention's independent investigation by Guidepost on abuse allegations. The report exposes horrible actions and responses in local churches and the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. John offers some insight, noting a recent Breakpoint commentary. To close, John asks Maria to comment on a recent article she penned in Christianity Today. Maria explores if a common accusation regarding abortion is factually true. Many note that if abortion laws pass they will limit the types of services for mothers who have ectopic pregnancies and other pregnancies where a child dies ineutero. Maria dispels these myths and explores some of the underlying medical community thoughts and practices that undo this myth that is being retold in public circles.

Yesterday, when our writing team gathered to discuss the horrific events at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, we struggled to know how to even process what had happened, much less what to say: Yet, another evil attack on vulnerable children; evil so shocking, it's impossible to fathom; and, at the same time, a story horrifyingly familiar. On Tuesday morning, an 18-year-old young man, after shooting his own grandmother, drove to his former elementary school, rammed through the security gate with his car, and barricaded himself in a classroom. Before it was all over, 19 children and two teachers had been killed. As if that were not horrible enough, it came just days after two other mass shootings. On May 15, one man was killed and five more wounded at a California church, and the day before that, 10 were killed in a racially motivated assault in Buffalo, New York. Over 30 dead in less than a week. For what? This simply should not be. We're left with a lot of uncomfortable questions. How could anyone be capable of such evil? How long until something like this happens again? Why does this keep happening? Why so often here in America, but rarely elsewhere, in places like Britain or Australia? Why did it not happen here even a generation or two ago? What is plaguing young men in our culture, who are far more likely to commit acts of evil like this? Basic clarity seems elusive, much less progress. As a friend pointed out, it's alarming to think that younger generations are being conditioned to think that these events are normal occurrences, and that retreating to political corners and blaming others is the normal way to respond to them. That would be a tragedy upon a tragedy. Still, what hasn't changed is that God has called His people to a particular time and place, and He's called us to be part of His redemptive work in the world in this time and this place. While the temptation to "just do something" at times like this is strong, it also quite often misleading. Thank God for the vast resources He has given us in Scripture, and how they apply even to times as confusing as these. First, the psalms of lament and the imprecatory psalms offer godly direction for our rage and sorrow. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly, God invites His people to weep before Him for the sorrows of the world and to be angry at the injustices we experience. Second, the Apostle Paul gives us something to do at times like this: "Mourn with those who mourn." This instruction matches the incarnational way that God, in Christ Jesus, interacted with His fallen world. He was with us. May God give strength to His people in Uvalde, Texas, to be the Church there. At the same time, this is another symptom of culture-wide brokenness, so all of us have the same incarnational work to do. And we can do this work, because of what we learn from the shortest verse in the Bible. In one of the most poignant moments in Scripture, we read that "Jesus wept." In Bethany, Christ joins in with a dead man's sisters in their mourning for their loss. What makes this so astonishing is that Jesus knows that He will raise Lazarus to life again, and, by doing so, he is going to end the family's suffering, even turn it into a party. Yet, He is not aloof or dismissive of their grief. Instead, He weeps with them—for the pain of a fallen world, for the unnaturalness of death, for the hopelessness people feel in the face of tragedy. Because Christ—who had the power of life and death at His command—can weep with those who weep, we can do the same. And finally, we have the gift of knowing that one day, death itself will be cast into Hell. So, we do not grieve as though without hope. One day, everything sad "will become untrue." And because we do not weep as the world weeps, the Church has so much to offer when the world does weep. Like now.

A couple of weeks ago, an article by National Public Radio's Sarah McCammon's made the rounds on various public media outlets with this headline: "When Does Life Begin? Religions Don't Agree." Clearly, it was an attempt to warn pro-lifers against stubborn certainty on abortion. The central claim of the article is that not every religion holds that human life begins at conception. Of course they don't, but why would they? Religions don't agree on all kinds of essential matters, such as if there's a God, who is God, whether Jesus was God, or whether we are God. And that's just about God. If disagreement among vastly different worldviews is somehow supposed to trivialize the convictions of pro-lifers, wouldn't the same reasoning trivialize any convictions of religious abortion supporters, too? So, what's the point? Interestingly enough, even though religions disagree on whether life begins at conception, science doesn't. Or at least, every embryology textbook is clear about when life begins. Honest abortion supporters, such as Peter Singer, acknowledge as much, that abortion takes a human life. So, should we follow the science, or not?