Breakpoint

According to Pew Research, a growing number of Americans are realizing the importance of the nuclear family. Just three years ago, 40% of Americans agreed with the statement "single women raising children on their own is bad for society." That number has now jumped to 47%. The same is true of cohabitation, which nearly a quarter of U.S. adults say is "generally bad for society." That's up 5% from three years ago. It's an encouraging swing for public opinion, especially with both trends still on the rise. Kids do best with both a mom and a dad in the picture. They do better still when mom and dad stay married to each other. Of course, there are a plenty of heroic single parents raising kids on their own, who will do everything they can to help their kids succeed. Data isn't destiny for all individuals, but it is destiny for a society. The loss of marriage is unsustainable. As the world leader in single-parent households, Americans will either have to reckon with that basic truth, or the next generations will continue to pay the price.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon formally requested the formation of a commission to study the effects of population growth on the United States: "One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man's response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today." Revealed in President's Nixon words are a number of controlling assumptions: that humans are a problem to be solved, that the world continues to exist by razor-thin margins for error, that too many humans would certainly push the earth past its breaking point, and that some combination of science and state could secure the human future. On March 27, 1972, the Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth and the American Future issued its report. Named for its chairman, John D. Rockefeller, and made up of an august group of Republican and Democrat lawmakers, policy wonks, scientists, sociologists, economists, and foundation heads, the commission's recommendations left "scarcely any topic touching on family relations and the human right to life… unaffected." A new document, entitled "Declaration on a New American Future," describes in detail the 50- year legacy of the Rockefeller Commission report: "…the Commission called for the legalization of abortion through the second trimester of pregnancy, public funding of abortion and abortion-providing organizations, universal private insurance coverage of abortion, and distribution of anti-population propaganda to teenagers." Even more important, was the report's "long-term impact": "…the Rockefeller Commission report posed, and continues to pose, a profound shift in the relationship between government and people. … the report relies on decidedly bleak conclusions about human prospects, the opportunities for economic growth and technological invention. It establishes as normative a relationship in which government is not merely an expression of the choices of a free people, but an overseer dedicated to its own designs for and limits on the populace, an overseer unbound by any duty to respect the sanctity of human life or the sanctuary of the family and other private institutions." 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. The "Declaration on a New American Future" is a call to rethink the wrongheaded and destructive ideas of the Rockefeller Commission report, ideas with terrible consequences and countless victims. I am honored to join Chuck Donovan of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, former Ambassador Sam Brownback, pro-life leaders Jeanne Mancini, Kristan Hawkins, Catherine Glenn Foster, and brilliant scholars Robert George and Ryan Anderson and others, as a signatory, because as this important statement clarifies: "In the half century since the Rockefeller Commission report was released, the lives of 63.5 million unborn children have been taken in abortion facilities erected in the United States in the wake of the errors of Roe. Parental rights over their children, and their health and safety, have been eroded to the point that in a number of states abortions can be procured by or foisted on minor children without parental knowledge or consent. These policies and practices have been abetted by a series of public health alarms, beginning with population and environmental concerns and proceeding now through diverse panics induced by pandemics and climate change. In each of these declared emergencies, legitimate matters of the common good and public concern have been translated into government policies and mandates designed to truncate parents' rights and subject them to the will of the state. … "…it is time for a new direction. We equally reject the core policies on respect for human life promoted by the Rockefeller Commission and the apocalyptic tone and content of its warnings about a bleak and heartless human future. We hold that the history of humanity, though troubled by conflict, poverty, war and disease, demonstrates that progress is possible in every area of human endeavor. We likewise hold that it is essential that public policy reject extreme notions that put every group and individual in society in endless competition with each other for limited goods, and that inevitably lead to declining standards of living. We embrace the worth of every human life and call for positive policies that put supreme value on the sanctity of life and the preservation of institutions that safeguard it." The Declaration on a New American Future offers five specific proposals: "The reversal of the unconstitutional abortion decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that have wreaked so much havoc on America and deprived our nation of the blessings of millions of young people of both sexes and all religions, ethnicities and races. The end of domestic funding at all levels of government to organizations that have embraced abortion, eugenics and population control as legitimate aims of health care programming, as these aims subvert respect for the equality of every human being under the law. The United States to readopt similar policies in its programs of international aid to exclude abortion provision and advocacy. Recognition that embracing abortion in response to population growth has contributed to sharply declining birth rates worldwide. We note with particular concern that the decline in births is correlated to American women having fewer children than they and their spouses would prefer. Since the release of the Rockefeller Commission report, the U.S. fertility rate has often dropped below replacement, reaching record lows in recent years. A renewal of American understanding that, as the founders and our leaders have long proclaimed, God is the source of both our rights and our blessings, and that just government depends on recognition of and Thanksgiving for what a good and generous God has entrusted to us." As the Declaration concludes, it is time "to change course, to celebrate life, and to honor the principle that each and every member of the human family is endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights, including the right to life."

For over four decades, William Wilberforce fought against the inhumane practice of slavery. He also worked for what he called the "reformation of manners." In the words of one biographer, he "made goodness, compassion and integrity fashionable." Wilberforce's work highlights the challenging reality Christians face in every cultural moment: the deep brokenness of this fallen world. Wilberforce engaged the culture of his time by highlighting the inherent dignity of humanity, most notably by fighting against slavery. His work in the "reformation of manners" was a major contributor to not only making slavery illegal, but also, eventually, unthinkable. The Colson Center's annual conference is named in Wilberforce's honor. At this year's Wilberforce Weekend, we'll explore the effects of Christ's redemptive work across every area of life from a variety of angles. The conference will be held at the stunning Rose and Shingle Creek in Orlando, May 13-15, and will feature Jim Daly, Os Guinness, Ryan Bomberger, Nancy Guthrie, Monique Duson, and many more. The weekend features compelling talks, panel discussions, live podcast recordings, and a screening of The Most Reluctant Convert, a film about the redemption of C.S. Lewis. For more information, visit www.wilberforceweekend.org

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. Yielding to this fallacy has been a disaster, not just for the concept of gender, but also for the concept of human dignity. It's as if many think there's not enough of it to go around. The Church should be able offer clarity. Christians must insist that men and women are real. We must also insist that fact doesn't compel a competition. There is no hierarchy of human dignity. Unfortunately, Christians over the centuries have made some big mistakes in this area. At times, roles that men and women fill have been prioritized over the goodness of their God-given design. More often, roles have been conflated with design. For example, Christians have generally understood that the Bible does not permit women to pastor churches. Some have taken that further to suggest that women must lack the intellectual capacity or curiosity to study the Bible and learn theology. That's demonstrably false. Because of the real physical differences between men and women, and the different things children need from mothers and fathers, men have historically performed the breadwinning work for their families. Some Christians have wrongly assumed that this means women lack the ability, talent or calling to pursue any kind of work unrelated to motherhood. Yet the Bible is full of stories of women who contributed to their families, communities, and the kingdom of God in ways other than through motherhood or marriage. Another mistake some Christians make, which may be in response to modern feminism or critical theory, is to suggest that when women contribute something positive to society—a scientific breakthrough, or an impressive career—it's because of their inherent superiority to men. Conversely, when women contribute something negative—they commit a crime or mistreat others—the fault is the patriarchal systems that oppresses them. That way of thinking robs women of moral agency. In response, some Christians talk about the moral imperative for women to bear responsibility for what is wrongly considered exclusively female sins—such as immodesty or even abortion. Often, these Christians are unwilling to expect positive contributions from women outside the roles of wife and mother. In other words, Christians ought not react to the rejection, erasing, or confusing of gender, by merely retreating to roles. We must begin where the Bible does, with design. Both men and women were made by God in His image. How we live out our calling to fill and cultivate the creation will be marked, in both physical and non-physical ways, by our maleness or femaleness. At the same time, women who serve as wives and mothers are neither contributing more nor less than women who aren't in those roles. In other words, the primary calling of both men and women is to glorify God. How we do that in particular times and places, and in particular seasons of our life, will differ. Too often, while Church's ministry to men is about cultivating admirable Christian virtues such as bravery and courage, too much of the Church's ministry to women is only about how to be feminine. To think about Christian women only in relation to men is to paint an incomplete picture. In other words, we ought not leave the impression that Christian women are not also called to be brave and courageous, or well-studied and theologically grounded. And, Christian men are also called to be gentle, meek, and slow to speak. If, as Jesus told the Sadducees, we will "neither marry nor be given in marriage" in the New Heavens and New Earth, how we will serve and glorify God in the age to come will not be as fathers and husbands or mothers and wives. When Jesus said that in order to be His disciples, we must take up our crosses and follow Him, He was speaking to both men and women. Therefore, we should expect women to take responsibility for their sins, just as we should with men. And, we should expect profound contributions to the kingdom of God from women, as women, as much as we do from men. This has been the defining vision and approach of the Strong Women podcast. In a culture so lost on gender, one which now suggests that women don't really exist, Christians must stubbornly ground ourselves in God's good, created design of His imago dei. If we can get this right, we'll have much to offer our confused age.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sat before the Senate this week and boldly stated that she does not know what a woman is because she's not a biologist. Her statement says a lot, not necessarily about the judge, as John points out, but more about how we view the judiciary in this cultural moment. John and Maria also explain that the so-called trend of "radical monogamy" and society's need for more than consent are actually best housed inside Christianity. As John describes, these moments are a revisiting of history. He reveals how the power of sexuality is a physical reality, similar to gravity. Society highlights cultural moments like these as turning points when in reality these principles have been grounded inside God's design. Maria then shares the story of a high school football coach, Joe Kennedy, who simply prayed for his players privately on the field after football games. His school fired him, and his subsequent religious freedom court case is set to see the Supreme Court next month. John and Maria discuss the court case and project how the case will be received and why we can have encouragement and hope as we consider this situation. To close, John revisits a few BreakPoint commentaries from the week. Specifically, John reviews a BreakPoint on how we should pray for the people in Russia, praying through all of the Psalms including the imprecatory Psalms that call for justice on specific people in a specific moment.

When we think of Christ's call to love our enemies, we often think of work rivals or political opponents. Loving these "enemies" isn't easy, but not impossible. What if, however, our enemies are evildoers, responsible for acts of evil and violence? We can respect the brave protestors that have been arrested for standing up to Putin. We pity teenagers conscripted into a fight they neither sought nor understand. But are we really called to love Putin and his cronies or the Russian troops rejoicing in their conquest or the talking heads in Moscow calling to expand the war into Eastern Europe? Jesus' words about loving our enemies remain as true and trying as ever. But the radical love to which Christ calls us shouldn't be confused with squishy emotion or moral vacuity. We love our enemies by praying for God's mercy on their victims, and for His justice to overwhelm and overcome their wicked intents, and for His will to be done on Earth as it is in heaven.

In the historical dockyards at Chatham in England is the largest collection of Royal National lifeboats in the U.K.. On many of the lifeboats, printed numbers show how many times the boat has launched, and how many lives it saved. It's a haunting presentation of how life can sometimes hang on a precipice, and what it takes to rescue souls lost at sea. The dockyard is also an interesting analogy for the Church in this cultural moment. Sometimes churches seem more like a museum of saints, a place where salvation is remembered. Here, redemption is often described in the past tense, focused on what God has saved us from. Or, like the dockyard at Chatham, we mark our success by souls saved, with little reference to what happens next for those whose life is in Christ, much less their families, communities, or societies. This presentation of the Church isn't inaccurate, but it is inadequate. Our salvation isn't only about being saved from sin and hell, but also about being saved to eternal and abundant life and for a redemptive purpose. Once Christians experience the life-changing impact of the Gospel, God's restorative work alters every aspect of their lives. This is more than being saved from Hell, and it's even more than being saved to eternal life. The famous pastor John Newton embodied this. When he famously wrote, "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see," he revealed that he was not only redeemed from the incredible evil he perpetuated as a slave trader but that he was now given new vision, new direction, and new life. Newton inspired William Wilberforce, the great abolitionist, in the same way. For over four decades, Wilberforce fought against the horrible and inhumane practice of slavery, and also for what he called the "reformation of manners." He didn't see success immediately, especially on slavery. In fact, he was three days from dying when he heard that the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. But, in embracing the scope of God's redemptive work in Christ for the world, his personal redemption didn't stay private, he became a public force for good. Each year, the Colson Center gathers with Christians from across the country for an event named in Wilberforce's honor. The Wilberforce Weekend will be held in Orlando, Florida, May 13-15. This year's conference will explore, from a variety of angles, the scale and scope of God's redemptive work in Jesus Christ. Our goal will be to see all of life as redeemed by Christ. Together, we'll explore how Christ is best understood, not just as our personal Savior (though He is), but also as the center of reality. This means recognizing the essential links between who Christ is and creation, redemption, the kingdom of God, and all of history. We'll also dive deeply into the fullness of the redemptive vision Christ gives His people, as individuals, families, churches, and nations. We'll look closely at what we're saved from, not just Hell but death and fear of death, from bitterness and anger, and from confusion about who we are, all of which are incredibly relevant for the challenges of this cultural moment. We'll also look at what we're saved to...truth, identity and meaning and life, and also the vital needs of this cultural moment. And, we'll look closely at what we are saved for: wisdom, mission, reconciliation, and purpose. Along the way, we'll talk about what happens when redemption shapes a distinctly Christian approach to life, society, education, sport, hardship and conflict, film, and other aspects of culture. We'll hear from Jim Daly, Os Guinness, Ryan Bomberger, Nancy Guthrie, Max McLean, Rachel Gilson, Larry Taylor, Monique Duson, Morris Michalski—and many more! The Wilberforce Weekend features compelling talks, panel discussions, and live podcast recordings, and a special screening of The Most Reluctant Convert, a remarkable film about the redemption of C.S. Lewis. And, we're especially excited to announce an added pre-event, which will look closely at "Life After Roe," and the responsibility the redeemed have to continue their defense of the preborn until abortion is unthinkable. This even will feature Tim Tebow, Stephanie Grey Connors, Jim Daly and others. For more information, visit www.wilberforceweekend.org

The big problem isn't climate change ... for the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet with The Point. In a recent interview, former Secretary of State John Kerry lamented that the war in Ukraine would cost human lives and disrupt the principles of international law. But then the President's special envoy on climate expressed another concern: carbon emissions. You're going to "lose people's focus," on climate change, he told reporters: "Their attention will be diverted." To highlight the greenhouse emissions of a war which is actively claiming thousands of lives is backwards logic, at best. That's not to say people shouldn't care about the climate: We should. That's not to say war doesn't have a horrible impact on the environment: It does. But this is a worldview incapable of dealing with human evil, its human cost, or its real motivations. The former Secretary of State later expressed hope that melting ice will make Vladimir Putin rethink his war and help the world "stay on track with what we need to do for the climate." If only it were that easy. The people digging themselves out of the rubble in Kyiv or Mariupol might beg to differ.

In a recent interview, Mark Zuckerberg was asked to fill out a captcha test to prove once and for all that he's not a robot. In case you were wondering, he passed. It's all a bit funny, given (as John Mulaney observed a couple years ago), just how much time we spend these days proving to robots that we're not robots. Only human brains, apparently—can recognize every square with a stop sign or a boat. It's also a bit ironic, given the most exciting trend in computing technology is building computers using design principles based on the human brain. "Today's most successful artificial intelligence algorithms [are] loosely based on the intricate webs of real neural networks," writes Allison Whitten in Quanta Magazine. She's referring to something called "deep learning," advanced artificial intelligence that can compute huge amounts of data, while correcting mistakes or even anticipating future problems. From mapping traffic patterns to predicting storm fronts to understanding the stock market, the possibilities of deep learning are endless. For years, though, there's been a major holdup: how to keep it running. Deep learning requires so-called "simulated neural networks" or multiple layers of computers all crunching out the same problem. "Unlike our highly efficient brains," Whitten explains, "running these algorithms on computers guzzles shocking amounts of energy: The biggest models consume nearly as much power as five cars over their lifetimes." And now, after years of puzzling out how to make a system capable of running advanced AI, researchers are finding a breakthrough source of inspiration: the human brain. The secret lies in how the brain processes electronic data. Whereas digital communication is binary, using 1's and 0's, the brain's communication is analog: using one continuous data stream. Likewise, while digital tech relies on one central processing unit, the brain arranges millions of computing units next to memory units in the forms of synapses and neurons. The science is definitely chewy for us non-engineering types, but the results are incredible. Digital technology has transformed the modern world, opening vistas that previous generations would have thought impossible. Yet to fully master artificial intelligence, our brightest scientists are forced to direct their attention back to God's original design specs. This is part of a bigger phenomenon in engineering called "biomimetics." It's a word coined from the Greek bios, which means life, and mīmēsis which means imitation. Neurocomputing is just one of the more dramatic examples of what some have called the biomimetics' "goldrush," a race to understand and apply systems and design features of the natural world, which in many cases are far beyond even our most advanced engineering. This is not to say God somehow always prefers "natural" systems to "artificial" ones. Humans are designed to create and innovate and design in ways that have advanced us past our Garden of Eden beginnings. At the same time, there's no escaping the basic truth that natural systems are nothing short of stunning. People didn't design themselves, yet we possess self-repairing, massively complex biological systems. We experience life through five senses, our brains seamlessly integrating terabytes of data at all times. And to do it, we require only assorted organic materials we find around us. The brain can sustain itself on a cheeseburger. In 2013, a collaboration between Japanese and German scientists created one of the most realistic brain simulations ever attempted. They used what was, at that time, the world's fourth-largest computer, containing over 700,000 processor cores and producing an eye-popping 1.4 million gigabytes of RAM. The machine worked at top speed, crunching numbers for over 40 minutes. In the end, it produced just one second of simulated brain activity. Technology has advanced since then, but it still raises a fundamental question: How do we explain the complexity of the natural world? Darwinian naturalists are forced to punt to random, genetic mutations—or in the words of Bertrand Russell "accidental collocations of atoms"—and a limitless supply of time and chance. But they still can't escape the haunting questions. How did the universe itself come into existence? How do the laws of physics perfectly align for our survival here? How can we account for the incredible amount of complex and specified information in biological systems, including the human brain? How can we explain abiogenesis, or the origin of the first life from non-life? Christians don't have to agree on every scientific detail to point to what is obvious. There's a designer behind all of this design. In other words, as Casey Luskin with Evolution News summarizes: "Where, in our experience, do language-based digital code, computer-like programming, machines, and other high [information] structures come from? They have only one known source: intelligence."

John and Shane review healthy technology use. A listener asks for insight on what practices and habits a mindful parent has in their home as they lead their family in the digital age. Another listener writes in to ask how Christians should respond to the presence of oppression. The listener asks for perspective on what a Christian should do when they don't feel oppression, but are told it is present. John also helps a listener have a whole perspective of critiques of the modern church. The listener asks why church practices aren't reflected in the Bible.