Breakpoint

Fifty years ago last week, a government report lived up to the old adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. On March 27, 1972, a document known to history as the "Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth and the American Future," called for zero population growth in America as a means to save the world. While we have no reason to doubt that those behind the document had "good intentions," history has proven this paper a high mark of state-sponsored hubris. Not only did its proposed solutions make things worse instead of better, but it set a dark precedent for terrible crimes against humanity. To "stabilize" America's population, the paper called for increased regulation of immigration and, most notably given the Roe v. Wade decision just 10 months later, the legalization of and even encouraging of abortion. Still, as terrible as the consequences of the Rockefeller Commission report have been, they were the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the value and nature of human beings. It assumed, as many do today, that human beings are a net loss to the global future, that, on the whole, we take more than we give to the world. In the mid- to late 20th century, many elites grew concerned about the growing world population. Though it had remained in the hundreds of millions for thousands of years, the human population, with the rise of new technologies and social structures, topped a billion for the first time around 1800. Another billion was added by the early 1900s. By the time this report was written, the human population was approaching 4 billion. Because the commission assumed that every new person meant another mouth to feed from a limited supply of global food, they also assumed that more people posed a problem that must be mitigated. The Rockefeller Commission didn't so much find a solution to a real problem, as it created a solution to an already-assumed problem. To the chagrin of its devoted supporters even today, the Commission's recommendations were not as widely implemented as many would have liked. What does remain from the report, however, is a mindset that validated both abortion and the assumption of overpopulation, even after the predictions of global disaster turned out to be as fictional as a summer blockbuster. In fact, since the report's catastrophic predictions, the world population has more than doubled, from 3.8 billion people in 1972 to an estimated 7.9 billion today. Yet, instead of mass starvations and increased conflicts over resources, crop yields have increased dramatically, more than keeping pace with the mouths to feed. Humans simply didn't prove to be the virus so many thought they were. Rather, they were proved to be creators of new resources and innovative solutions, which makes sense if they really were made to be co-creators by the One who created all things. Created to tend the Garden of this world, humans are not merely consumers. We are producers, tasked with cultivating what was made into more than it presently is. It'd be nice if we could simply look back and chuckle at the folly of the ivory tower crowd and their bad ideas. But, as we often say, ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims. The sort of thinking expressed in the Rockefeller Report had very real victims— tens of millions, in fact. In the last 50 years, over 60 million Americans have been killed through abortion. In China, where the myth of the population bomb led to the horrific one child policy, some 300 million babies were slaughtered, many against the will of their mothers. Instead of saving the planet, these vain ideas of population control have left the nations of the world with a birth dearth. Russia, China, and Japan are notably struggling to maintain their numbers even as their older population phases out of the workforce. We are fast approaching another 50th anniversary, which I hope and pray will be an empty one. Next January is the 50-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the miscarriage of justice that usurped state laws across the country and legally grounded abortion's malign presence in America. With the Dobbs case being decided in a matter of weeks in the U.S. Supreme Court, next January's anniversary could arrive with Roe a dead letter. To prepare for the next phase of fighting this evil mindset and practice that plagues our nation, the Colson Center is hosting an event on Thursday evening, May 12, in Orlando, Florida. "Preparing for a Post-Roe Future" will be held the evening before our annual Wilberforce Weekend Conference and will feature Tim Tebow, Stephanie Gray Connors of Love Unleashes Life, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life. Please join us as we work to bring better ideas to the world around us.

John and Maria discuss the challenge in culture to toxic masculinity. This week the nation reacted to displays by Will Smith and Volodymyr Zelensky. John and Maria consider a recent commentary by comedian Bill Maher who challenges the view we have of masculinity and how we value it. In this vein, Maria asks John to comment on a recent HHS announcement to push so-called "gender affirming" surgeries on minors. John references a commentary by Maria on BreakPoint that discusses the role of women, and how the church has a unique place to affirm God's design. Maria then asks John to comment on a recent BreakPoint where John discussed "The Declaration on a New American Future." The declaration opposes a movement in the 1970s under the banner of the Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth that looked at abortion as population management. -- Recommendations -- 30 Days of Prayer>> Yuval Levin on Honestly with Bari Weiss>> -- In-Show Mentions -- Segment 1: Will Smith apologizes for slapping Chris Rock at the Oscars, calling it "unacceptable and inexcusable" Will Smith has apologized for slapping comedian Chris Rock in the face during the Oscars on Sunday. Smith said his "behavior at last night's Academy Awards was unacceptable and inexcusable" in a Monday night Instagram post. CBS News>> ZELENSKY PROVES A LITTLE MASCULINITY IS GOOD & SEXY - ACCORDING TO BILL MAHER Bill Maher laced into liberals who attack men for having supposed "toxic masculinity." The "Real Time with Bill Maher" host used Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and men taking up arms to defend Ukraine from the Russian invasion as examples of how masculinity can be anything but toxic. The Blaze>> NCAA Kicks-off March Madness Highlighting Title IX at 50th Finals The NCAA began its Title IX at 50 celebration during the 2022 NCAA Convention in Indianapolis. The celebration commemorates the anniversary of the landmark federal law signed in 1972 that prohibits gender discrimination in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. NCAA>> What are Women For? Our culture has long struggled with the realities of sexual difference, or "gender." While first- and second-wave feminism generally asserted that women were equal in value to men, transgenderism now asserts that women are interchangeable with men. Notice the underlying assumption: in order for men and women to have equal value, they have to be the same thing. BreakPoint>> Segment 2: The "Declaration on a New American Future" Challenges Abortion as a "Population Solution" The Rockefeller Commission report "reflected the temper of the times," especially the kind of catastrophic alarmism of Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, a book full of predictions and arguments that have since been proven wrong. And, in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that factors such as "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones" were considerations in the decision that imposed legalized abortion on America. BreakPoint>> Segment 3: Biden administration endorses transgender youth sex-change operations, 'top surgery,' hormone therapy President Biden's administration has released a series of documents encouraging gender-reassignment surgery and hormone treatments for minors. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Population Affairs released a document Thursday titled "Gender Affirming Care and Young People." The same day, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Child Traumatic Stress Network – another subset of the HHS – released a parallel document titled, "Gender-Affirming Care Is Trauma-Informed Care." Fox News>> Gender-Affirming Care Is Trauma-Informed Care Major medical associations recognize gender-affirming care as the standard of care for transgender,gender diverse, and intersex (TGI) youth. Gender-affirming care broadly refers to creating an environment that facilitates youth to move through the world safely as the gender they know themselves to be. This includes developmentally appropriate, evidence-based care provided by medical and mental health experts in partnership with youth, parents, and caregivers. It may include evidence-based interventions such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones. Gender-affirming care also includes access to opportunities that all children should have, such as playing team sports, safely using bathrooms in their schools and other public places, and positive relationships with supportive adults. National Child Trauma Stress Network Gender-Affirming Care and Young People Research demonstrates that gender-affirming care improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse children and adolescents.1 Because gender-affirming care encompasses many facets of healthcare needs and support, it has been shown to increase positive outcomes for transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents. Gender-affirming care is patient-centered and treats individuals holistically, aligning their outward, physical traits with their gender Identity. Gender diverse adolescents, in particular, face significant health disparities compared to their cisgender peers. Transgender and gender nonbinary adolescents are at increased risk for mental health issues, substance use, and suicide OASH>>

Tomorrow is the start of Ramadan, a month of prayer and fasting for Muslims worldwide. It's also a good month for Christians to pray for Muslims to find Christ. During this intense time for Muslims, not only are they are seeking atonement for their sins, they are actively seeking to know God. Christianity Today cites five reasons Muslims are attracted to Christ: "the lifestyle of Christians," "the power of God in answered prayers and healing," "dissatisfaction with the type of Islam they [have] experienced," "the spiritual truth in the Bible," and "biblical teachings about the love of God." In recent years, scores of reports from the Muslim world testify how God has actively used dreams, visions, missionaries, and others to draw Muslims to Himself. We can pray for open hearts and additional opportunities. For 29 years now, the 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World has guided Christians in their prayers for Muslims around the world. It's also a great way to learn about Islam and teach kids how Jesus is what Muslims are really looking for.

In 1996, American political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote a book called The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. In it, he proposed a remarkable thesis, that while in the past, especially in the 20th century, global conflicts had been primarily between nations, countries, and kingdoms, in the future, especially in the 21st century, global conflicts would increasingly be not between nation-states but between cultures, between civilizations. These cultural fault lines, as he called them, sometimes existed within a country or existed across regions. It didn't take very long into the 21st century to prove his theory correct. In fact, in The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington went on to predict that the hottest of these conflicts would be between religious and non-religious cultures, specifically, that what you might call the hottest of the hot would be between Islam and the West. In the time since 9/11, his predictions have largely played out. But there has been another story dealing with Islam that has played out at almost the same time. In fact, just over the last three decades or so, we have seen a remarkable number of Muslims coming to Christ. Individuals from the Islamic world are reporting conversions—sometimes through dreams, sometimes through missions, sometimes through other means. Regardless of the manner, it has been what one missiologist called a remarkable movement of the Holy Spirit. The reports are so numerous, in fact, that a foundation recruited a friend of mine, a scholar named Dr. David Garrison, to investigate. They sent him for several months to visit various corners of the Muslim world and to figure out where these stories were coming from. They wanted to know how legitimate these reports were. Garrison put together his findings in a book called A Wind in the House of Islam. You see, in the whole history of the Islamic faith, there have been few reports of large movements of Muslims becoming Christians—very few in fact. About 80 percent of all such movements in history have taken place in just the last three decades. There's something else that's taken place over the last three decades: Each and every year for the last 29 years, during the season of Ramadan, the most holy period for the Islamic calendar, a group of Christians led by a prayer guide have together prayed for Christ to draw Muslims to Himself. Ramadan is a very good time to keep our Muslim neighbors and Muslims around the world in prayer. Since 1993 to be precise, the 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World prayer guide has been equipping Christians to pray for Muslims during this season of Ramadan. It is an international movement that calls on "the church to make a deliberate but respectful effort to learn about, to pray for, and to reach out to our Muslim neighbors." There is even a 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World prayer guide for kids which I have used with my own family. The 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World is available both in a print booklet and as a digital download. You can find it by going to 30DaysPrayer.com, or come to BreakPoint.org, and we'll tell you how to pick up a copy. The Book of James tells us that "the effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." This has been a movement of prayer of hundreds of thousands of Christians for decades. Let's be a part of it.

According to National Geographic, "More than 80 percent of the ocean has never been mapped, explored, or even seen by humans." That's pretty incredible, given how much the ocean matters to our lives. And new research is showing us a much smaller frontier with just as much mystery: the cell. As Yasemin Saplakoglu recently described in Quanta Magazine, scientists at the University of Illinois have embarked on an ambitious project to map, using computers, a complete simulation of a "minimal cell." At 493 genes, the lab-made cell they're mapping contains far fewer genes than even the simplest natural organism. But the challenge is still proving to be steep. "For example," writes Saplakoglu, "no one knows what 94 of those genes do except that the cell dies without them." One of the researchers suggests there may be "living tasks or functions essential for life that science is oblivious to." That's an understatement. The more we learn, the more we should be filled with awe. After all, as Casey Luskin with Evolution News recently argued, high information structures like these have only one known source: intelligence with a Designer behind it.

Every once in a while, someone who doesn't profess Christianity will stumble upon some sort of natural or moral law that Christians have professed for centuries. To avoid agreeing with the Bible, or maybe because they legitimately think they've discovered something new, they'll often give the old idea a cool new re-brand. Case in point is a new piece at the edgy news-and-culture outfit Vice. The author reports on a brand-new type of progressive relationship structure: "radical monogamy." Not to be confused with the "boring, old, religious, traditional" kind of monogamy, "radical monogamy" is an exclusive relationship commitment that's chosen, not blindly accepted. And, this is crucial to the distinction: Monogamy that is "radical" is chosen from among the many equally valid relationship options, including polyamory. On one hand, it's not surprising that even those who wish to remain "sexually open minded," but still want to enjoy the best relationships possible, would land on monogamy. After all, as my old Tennessee friend would say, "it ain't rocket science." Research routinely shows that exclusive relationships, especially marriage, yield higher rates of general satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and healthier kids. Still, according to this Vice essay, proponents of radical monogamy stress that the decision to remain in an exclusive relationship was made by themselves, and for themselves. Of course, no one wants to be bamboozled, especially by someone else's morality or long-standing tradition. It's wise not to blindly accept social pronouncements or even moral and ostensibly religious arguments. Jesus often authenticated His pronouncements by alluding to or directly referencing the Old Testament. At the same time, it's quite foolish to rely only on our own minds or desires. And, to suggest that everyone who chose monogamy before now, including generations of stable couples who'd profess having wonderful lives together, either did it blindly or for the wrong reasons, is a profound act of what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." The worst part of "radical monogamy" is to suggest it's only valid if it's what I want, rather than because it is morally superior. What if your relationship partner also wants and deserves your exclusive commitment? What if it is the best context in order for kids to be safe and healthy? Is monogamy only "radical" if the well-being of others is not considered? An irony in all of this is that selfishness is about as mundane as it gets. "Me first" has been the same tired refrain of the sexual revolution for almost 50 years now. And it's a shame. After all, self-interested monogamy won't keep couples together any longer or make anyone any happier than any other sexually disordered relationship. Monogamy works precisely because it's a commitment to another because it says "I'll stay here even when" without knowing what is coming next. In that sense, no one enters into committed monogamy—or any commitment—with eyes wide open. So-called "radical monogamy" reflects a culture that tends to think of freedom only as freedom from any and all restraint. If free people are to choose monogamy, they have to consider, or maybe even try, every possible alternative. But life doesn't work like that. Christianity accepts that our lives are limited in both physical and non-physical ways: by things like the immovable reality of our bodies, by geography, and by moral laws. Human limits, including the moral limits of monogamy, narrow our relationship choices in ways that are more gifts than locked doors. Our limitations enable the freedom for something: the freedom to be truly human. A few years ago, a spokesmen for the media platform Second Life told journalist Leslie Jamison that users on their virtual reality platform would often become paralyzed by what was called the "white space problem." Apparently, the ability to build an entire virtual life from scratch, with limitless possibilities stretching in all directions, was too overwhelming. Too much white space isn't freeing; it's painful. Committed monogamy may limit our relational "white space," but when marked by real commitment and self-sacrifice, it's still the most fulfilling relationship option on offer, whether we call it "radical" or not.

John and Shane explain what happened at the Supreme Court nomination hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Many are talking about the fact that she failed to define a woman when asked. John explains that what we saw in the hearing explains a lot about where political parties are. Shane goes on to ask John about a listener's question related to J.I. Packer's book Knowing God. Shane explores the question, asking John to unpack how Jesus death and resurrection fulfilled the justice of God. To close, John is asked why he opposes the use of the word "balance." A listener asks how they should approach balance, when it has been a good tactic to build relationships with friends to explain the wholeness of the Christian worldview. John clarifies a definition of balance, and explains how true balance seeking is problematic and can cause troubled compromises.

As the Economist reports, the number of homeless Californians has surged by "more than a third in the past five years, compared with a rise of less than 6% nationally." By some estimates, half of America's unsheltered homeless population live in the Golden State. We ought never reduce people to mere statistics on this or any issue, or worse, to inconveniences. Proverbs 21 warns: "Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered." In fact, reducing the homeless population to their homelessness has been a big part of this problem. Historically, the U.S. has historically focused on a "housing-first" approach to homelessness: expensive programs putting people under roofs, but not much more. California's two most recent budget plans, for example, dedicate $26 billion to this approach. More money won't work if we don't address the heart of the issue. People must be seen as the connected image bearers and moral agents they are: in need of spiritual, relational, and physical redemption. Local governments do have a role to play, but this restoration requires the wider community, including the Church.

In 2014, physicist Michio Kaku wrote, "We are now entering the golden age of neuroscience. We have learned more about the thinking brain in the last 10–15 years than in all of previous human history." One particularly fruitful area of this science has to do with, of all things, gratitude. In a culture that values authenticity and prioritizes feelings, telling someone to "be grateful" can sound a lot like cheap pop psychology, or even worse, a tone-deaf lack of empathy. However, plenty of studies suggest that being grateful is far more significant to our mental health and well-being that we may realize. "Time and again," writes British psychologist Christian Jarrett: "Studies have shown that performing simple gratitude exercises, like keeping a gratitude diary or writing letters of thanks, can bring a range of benefits." A large and growing body of studies shows that exercising gratitude leads to better sleep, improved interpersonal relationships, better stress and hormonal regulation, and even reduced physical pains. One notable study followed over 40 participants seeking treatment for depression and anxiety. Half were asked to write letters expressing gratitude before the first few counseling sessions, while the rest formed a control group who attended "therapy-as-usual." Three months later, both groups were asked to perform a generosity task while being measured by MRI. According to Jarrett : "The participants who'd completed the gratitude task months earlier not only reported feeling more gratefulness two weeks after the task than members of the control group, but also, months later, showed more gratitude-related brain activity in the scanner. The researchers described these 'profound' and 'long-lasting' neural effects as 'particularly noteworthy' …. [This suggests] that the more practice you give your brain at feeling and expressing gratitude, the more it adapts to this mind-set…. a sort of gratitude 'muscle' that can be exercised and strengthened." Best of all, writes Jarrett, the positive effects of gratitude can spiral outwardly, creating a culture where gratitude becomes easier for others as well. Of course, gratitude is not a magic cure for all that ails us. It is, however, for mental health what vegetables are for physical health: vital, underrated, and sometimes difficult to swallow. That difficulty, in fact, is one of gratitude's enigmas. After all, it's one thing to say gratitude is beneficial; it's another to find an existential, compelling, or transcendent basis for gratitude. After all, the idea of gratitude is nothing new. It's no innovation of brain science. Even so, it doesn't always come easily for most people, even those who most know they need it. It seems especially difficult today, even despite the incredible scale of modern prosperity we enjoy. One reason could be that a central belief of the modern world is expressive individualism, a philosophy which tells us to be true to ourselves over and above anything else. Though that might sound liberating, if our lives and success are ultimately self-created, who have we to thank? And for those who, as many people do, feel a real desire to thank "the universe" or "god, whoever he or she is" for some success or well-being, an illusion of gratefulness cannot be long maintained if aimed at no one in particular. Many Christians, on the other hand, worry that if we allow ourselves to enjoy too much the good things from God's hand, we will forget to be grateful, or perhaps even forget about others who are suffering around the world. The Psalms speak powerfully to this tension. In many of the Psalms, God's people are encouraged toward more expression, not less. God invites the full weight of our grief and the full force of our hardest questions, and yet, at the same time, expects our gratitude, too. Throughout the Psalms, in fact, God's people openly share their sorrows and even despair. The way forward lies not in ignoring evil done to them by their enemies but in remembering the good and faithful work God has done on their behalf. Ultimately, gratitude "works," as more and more research suggests because it is a true response of a creature to Creator. As G. K. Chesterton has been somewhat paraphrased, "When we were children we were grateful to those who filled our stockings at Christmas time. Why are we not grateful to God for filling our stockings with legs?" Gratitude helps us see life clearly, and allows us to live it as God intended, to its fullest.

Few are standing for the inherent dignity and rights of children against the innovations of our age. But in this cultural moment, defending children against gender ideology and misguided interpretations of parenting is our version of "running into the plague and caring for victims" while everyone else is running away. John Stonestreet introduces author Katy Faust, the founder and director of the children's rights organization Them Before Us and author of the new book "Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement." She is married and the mother of four children, the youngest of whom is adopted from China.