Breakpoint

"Trust is to capitalism what alcohol is to wedding receptions," suggests Jerry Useem in an article in The Atlantic last November, "a social lubricant... 'If trust is sufficiently low,'" he continues, quoting economists Paul Zak and Stephen Knack, "'economic growth is unachievable.'" Public trust, specifically of the federal government, began to erode in the 1960s. The series of unfortunate events in the decades that followed—wars, Watergate, economic struggles, impeachments, ever-deepening political divisions—only contributed to what has become a steady decline of public confidence in the federal government. The only notable exception came with the brief spike in national unity in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. During the last two years, like so many other social conditions that pre-existed the COVID pandemic, the numbers hit an all-time low. Our national distrust is not only aimed at Washington D.C.. According to a 2019 Pew Study, almost two-thirds of Americans believe trust in each other is falling. The inherent connection between interpersonal trust and social stability, has an impact on the economy, among other things. In their report, titled Trust and Growth, Paul Zak and Stephen Knack describe that "low trust environments reduce the rate of investment and thus the economy's growth rate…very low trust societies can be caught in a poverty trap." On the other hand, when social trust improves, so does interpersonal trust..This can actually lead to economic growth. Americans' trust in each other, however, dropped from 45% in 1973 to just 30% in 2014. Useem thinks that had trust among Americans been stronger during that time frame, more like New Zealand for example, "(our annual GDP per capita would) be $16,000 higher." In addition to our pocketbooks, the loss of trust is affecting work. According to one study, 42% of employees think that their employers do not understand their pandemic experiences. Conversely, employers are showing a decline in trusting their employees. Since the pandemic started, the employee monitoring software industry has grown by 50%. According to one study, 74% of remote workers are concerned their employer is monitoring when and how much they work. As one Forbes article that predates the pandemic put it, a lack of trust in the workplace "demotivates employees and is costing businesses dearly." Trust is a significant ingredient of what can be called "social capital." Just as an individual needs financial, relational, and labor resources to start and grow a business, so a society needs financial, relational, and labor resources in order to grow and flourish. It only makes sense that a collective loss of trust, particularly at the scale we are now experiencing, would be felt in economic terms. As opposed to more short-term factors like monthly job creation or a particularly volatile stock price, social trust points to more consequential concerns about longer-term stability and sustainability. Christians, of course, care about social trust for far more important reasons than the economy. The economy, in fact, is just one of many indicators of human flourishing, but there are others, such as family stability, mental health, upward mobility, education, and creativity. Trust is critical in each of these aspects of social capital. Starting tonight, and continuing for the next four weeks, a new Colson Center short course will tackle this crisis of trust. Taught by Dr. Bruce Ashford and Dr. Yuval Levin, the course will begin with Dr. Ashford exploring where authority is grounded in a Christian worldview, namely the character of God. Next Tuesday night, Dr. Ashford will explore some of the social factors and historical shifts that have led to the current crisis of trust and authority. In the third session, Dr. Ashford will teach on how Christians can cultivate discernment, an essential ingredient if we are to rebuild trust in the context of our fallen world and broken cultural moment. Finally, to close the course, Dr. Yuval Levin will talk about the crisis of trust in social institutions and how we can work to rebuild them. As Useem wrote in the Atlantic article, "A trust spiral, once begun, is hard to reverse." But what choice do we have but to confront it? If we are to be faithful to Christ in this cultural moment, Christians must embrace the call to be agents of reconciliation in their own spheres of influence. That's why this short course is so important right now. "The Crisis of Authority and Loss of Trust: A Christian Response" course begins tonight, at 8 p.m. Eastern, and will continue for the next four weeks. Each session is live online, and recordings are made available for anyone enrolled in the course not able to make the live session. To register, please visit www.colsoncenter.org/events.

Several Nordic countries that, for decades, have had among the world's lowest birthrates, experienced a babyboom during the pandemic. In the second half of 2021, Iceland saw an incredible 16.5% more births than usual, and Finland and Norway experienced 7 and 5% more births, respectively. Typically, a global crisis results in lower fertility rates. In the U.S., for example, the birthrate dropped by 4%. In China, it was a staggering 15%. For years, Nordic countries have offered generous incentives to increase child births, to little effect, as have other European nations that did not see a similar boom during the pandemic. So, money can't explain it. Perhaps for some, the pandemic highlighted what really matters. One Icelandic mom of teenagers said: "We would just have conversations about everything and nothing and have fun and laugh. … I think that was the tipping point for me. I realized I wasn't ready to be done with the mom thing." The mom thing—and the dad thing—is a good thing.

It should go without saying that, in 21st century America, most of the assumptions at work in contemporary culture are not Christian assumptions. And whatever new "normal" is, it's constantly changing, it's anything but worldview neutral. As my friend and author Natasha Crain puts it in her new book Faithfully Different, "We are in a culture where feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess." That means that Christians today are called to a daunting task: believing, thinking, and living contrary to widely accepted beliefs and practices. We must be a "worldview minority," even, at times, among those who call themselves Christians. In her punchy and accessible new book, Natasha Crain helps Christians embrace this calling while resisting the false assumptions that surround us. Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture is a terrific guide for those who wish to maintain Christian identity and confidence in the face of pervasive secularism. Of course, the first step to faithfully living as a worldview minority is to establish that we are, in fact, a minority. After all, Pew Research's Religious Landscape Study still shows that around 65 percent of Americans identify as Christians. However, surveys that look at actual beliefs give a clearer picture of what's going on. In her interview with my colleague Shane Morris on the Upstream podcast, Natasha pointed to the recent results of the American Worldview Inventory, conducted by George Barna and Arizona Christian University. According to that survey, just 6% of Americans hold a "functional biblical worldview," meaning they gave recognizably Christian answers to questions like, Who is God? and What are human beings? and Is there absolute truth? Among respondents between the ages of 18 and 29, only 2% had a functional biblical worldview. This kind of extreme minority status means there is constant pressure on Christians to live in a secular way and to hide beliefs that our neighbors find unbelievable. Even worse, there is strong temptation to join in the cultural scorn on historic Christian faith, following the example of the many authors, entertainers, and pastors who have publicly "deconstructed" their former faith. Faithfully Different is a clarion call for Christians to intentionally push back on this pressure. In twelve rich but readable chapters, she identifies and challenges the primary assumptions held in our secular culture and reasserts the Christian alternative as a better way to understand the world. In full disclosure, Natasha asked me to write the foreword for Faithfully Different, and I did so gladly after reading it. Here's a portion of what I wrote: All humans are, in many important ways, shaped by cultures. Our fashions, tastes, beliefs, and so many other things about us reflect the social environments into which we are born and live. In fact, a culture is most powerful in shaping us by what it makes seem normal. If you've ever traveled to another country, you've likely experienced the feeling of, seemingly, being in a different world. You're not, of course. You're in a different culture, a place imagined and built differently by a different group of people. This is what humans do. We build worlds within the world. In recent decades, the Western world (which include the United States) has shifted in dramatic ways. Things once unthinkable are now unquestionable. Beliefs and behaviors once unimaginable now seem so, well, normal. Christians who aren't discerning will quickly find themselves embracing things that are wrong. That's why this book, Faithfully Different, is so important and, if you read it carefully, will be so helpful. Natasha is a clear thinker and a captivating writer, with this knack of explaining things most essential, such as worldview and culture. Not only does she help her readers understand what they need to know, she helps them act in ways faithful to truth. As parents of four kids, my wife and I are big fans of Natasha's previous books. As someone who has spent the last two decades studying worldviews and culture, trying to convince Christians to take both seriously, I'm a big fan of this one, too. Faithfully Different covers an incredible amount of crucial ground without cutting any corners. It's one of those rare books that is both faithful to biblical truth and honest about our cultural situation, a work of sound cultural analysis from a solid, and distinctly Christian worldview. It's just so very helpful. I hope you'll pick up Natasha Crain's timely new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture, and listen to her interview with Shane on the Upstream podcast.

John and Maria discuss a recent situation where Neil Young pressured Spotify to remove Joe Rogan from their lineup due to what is being discussed on his show about the coronavirus. John explains how this situation is a sample of our society's loss of trust in many institutions. He shares why institutions are important for a flourishing culture and offers a short course from the Colson Center. The course explains how institutions are important and how we can rebuild trust that is informed and has significance for culture shaping. Maria then asks John to explain a recent commentary on technology that paints a picture to how and why Christians should be involved with technology as it guides and impacts society. Maria also asks John to further explain a commentary on how the word "parent" is being redefined and what that does to those closest to the redefinition, children. -- In Show Mentions -- The Loss of Trust and Our Crisis of Authority: A Christian Response>> Psaki cheers Spotify warning on COVID podcasts, says 'more' should be done White House press secretary Jen Psaki applauded Spotify Tuesday for adding disclaimers to podcast episodes that discuss COVID-19 — before adding "there's more that can be done." The New York Post>> The new moral majority comes for Joe Rogan. Last week, Canadian-American rock god Neil Young made a clarion call against free speech. Displeased by The Joe Rogan Experience's Covidian contents, Young demanded that Spotify remove Rogan's podcast—or remove him. Days later, Young's music was off the platform, though you can still stream his songs on Apple (ignore their forced Uyghur labor in Xinjiang) and on Amazon (but don't read about the company's infamous working conditions in James Bloodworth's book "Hired.") Common Sense>> God is no Luddite, and We Need Not Be Either In the broadest sense, God created humanity with the capacity to structure and organize life, and steward the world He created. The tools we create to do this are good, as they serve these ends. A strong clue lies in the book of Revelation, where history, which began in a Garden, is culminated in one of humanity's own sociological innovations: the city. BreakPoint>> Redefining 'Parent' is Bad for Kids As Christians, we accept that the One in charge of the definition of "parent" is the One who created the process by which we become one. However, whether or not we are Christians, biology requires a man and a woman to create a child, even if some find these mechanics of reality discriminatory or unjust. Despite our best attempts to separate sex from procreation, which Obergefell codified into law, it simply cannot be done. Same-sex relationships cannot produce children. Children need both a mother and a father. These things remain true even if the God who created the world this way is rejected. At the same time, the Bible acknowledges that the desire for children is both natural and good. God repeatedly honors that desire throughout Scripture, sometimes despite biological challenges like age or infertility. And, at other times, God does not give the gift of children, even to those who desperately desire them. BreakPoint>>

So many indications reveal just how much young men are struggling in our culture… mentally, spiritually, and relationally. And new research reveals how much women are struggling, too. A recent survey from The Roots of Loneliness Project found that middle-aged women reported the sharpest rise in loneliness when the pandemic lockdowns began in 2020. According to The Wall Street Journal, women in this group, particularly moms, spend a lot of time on social media but feel increasingly stressed and isolated. At best, social media "connections" can only supplement embodied community, but they cannot be a replacement for it. Because women aren't as likely as men to act out in violent or destructive ways, their struggles can go unnoticed. Moms are in a uniquely challenging spot. Though rarely alone, they are also rarely around other adults. This survey is a good reminder that moms should make time for adult community without feeling guilty for it. And, it's a good reminder for dads and the larger Church body: Don't forget about the moms.

Twenty-six years ago, Wired magazine co-founder Kevin Kelly made a $1,000 dollar bet with author Kirkpatrick Sale. The wager was about whether or not, by the year 2020, society as we know it would have collapsed entirely. Back in 1995, Sale was known for his critique of the internet, which was just starting to overhaul daily life. His book Rebels Against the Future praised the Luddites, a group of English textile workers who opposed industrialization by aggressively destroying the technology that made it possible. Sale's premise was similar. "If the edifice of industrial civilization does not eventually crumble as a result of a determined resistance within its very walls, it seems certain to crumble of its own accumulated excesses and instabilities within not more than a few decades, perhaps sooner." That was just too much for Kelly, a dedicated tech-optimist who had spent most of a decade living in remote parts of Asia before becoming the founding executive editor of Wired in 1993. That experience had given him new appreciation for both human culture and technological progress. It ultimately led him to oppose Sale's pessimism. "I saw completely vehicle-less cities—people throwing garbage in the streets, no toilets. So when people were talking [about] getting rid of technology, I was like … no no no, you have no idea." In 1995, Kelly interviewed Sale and sprung his trap. Pulling out a check for $1,000, he wagered that in 25 years the world wouldn't even be close to the kind of disaster Sale predicted: total economic collapse, war between rich and poor nations, and environmental catastrophe. Their mutual publisher would decide the winner. In January of last year, the bet was settled. Even in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, there was no real debate about who had won. The challenges of the modern era aren't trivial, but even Sale had to reluctantly agree that society had not collapsed. Kelly's interview with Sale not only makes for a fascinating read, it's a helpful springboard for Christians to think about the role of technology in shaping worldview. First, while Sale's claims seem far-fetched in hindsight, there's a voice like his in every generation. In the 1960s, it was Paul Ehrlich's infamous book The Population Bomb, which predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve due to overpopulation. Ehrlich wasn't just wrong about that prediction: His ideas were disastrous fodder for totalitarian regimes worldwide, justifying forced sterilization in places like Mexico, Bolivia, and Indonesia or the one child policy in China. The same fear persists even today, whether from an all-consuming "climate-anxiety" or the misguided belief that simply making fewer babies will solve the world's problems. But Christians should know better. While actively and responsibly caring for the planet, it's our duty to resist philosophies that come at the expense of infinitely valuable human lives. This is based in Christian confidence: We know how the story ends. Second, a Neo-Luddite outlook assumes that technology, not human nature, is responsible for the world's evils. This, too, is on the rise in our day by a romanticization of life in the distant past, based on the idea that humanity's ancestors lived in a state of harmonious bliss with the Earth and each other. This doesn't just miss the point: It encourages a quixotic fight against humanity's tools, while ignoring their souls. It's here that we need clarity. Innovation hasn't ruined humanity's idyllic past, but it cannot give us an idyllic future, either. As Neil Postman wrote in his excellent book Technopoly, "Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that." For evidence, we need only look at digital communication. The same technology that allows us to make video calls to friends on the other side of the world can keep us from looking our own children in the eye. One survey reported more than 1 in 3 Americans reported feeling lonely, either "all the time, or almost all the time." Better methods of communication can help people stay in touch, but it can't make that communication meaningful. It can even make us too busy or too distracted to see the real needs of those around us. In the broadest sense, God created humanity with the capacity to structure and organize life, and steward the world He created. The tools we create to do this are good, as they serve these ends. A strong clue lies in the book of Revelation, where history, which began in a Garden, is culminated in one of humanity's own sociological innovations: the city. In other words, God is no Luddite. We need not be one either. A truly Christian worldview celebrates the beauty of innovation, while maintaining healthy skepticism about any and all utopian promises.

As Kate Shellnut with Christianity Today writes, "Evangelicals under 40 are twice as likely as their seniors to want more substance from the pulpit." She's referring to a new survey on church satisfaction from Grey Matter research group. Not only do 3 in 10 evangelicals want more in-depth teaching, but the strong majority are happy with how their church handles even tougher topics like giving or politics. It correlates with a 2017 Gallup poll, which showed that 83% of Protestants consider learning about Scripture as the main reason they attend church. That outpaces other worthy things like kids' programming, musical worship, or social opportunities. Of course, making churchgoers happy isn't the ultimate metric of the Christian faithfulness … but that might be exactly the point. Strategies to make church relevant and interesting have to be grounded in the main thing: the truth of God's word. Watering it down isn't just unfruitful or unwise: It's a bad retention strategy.

In case you haven't heard, Major League Baseball is in the middle of a lockout. Later this week, the players' union will meet with team owners to negotiate on new contracts, hopefully in time for spring training. Imagine, if all of this haggling over salaries and contracts and terms happened without the players being at the table? What if MLB team owners were negotiating with sportscasters or concession stand workers or third-base umpires over the terms and million-dollar conditions of the baseball players' contracts, but the players were not welcome? It's an absurd notion. Negotiations cannot work unless all of the key stakeholders are in the room. And that's the exact scenario right now at a very different negotiating table. In 1973, states began considering, with many eventually passing, something called the Uniform Parentage Act. The legislation codified a legal definition of the word "parent," which more or less aligned with reality: "Parent" meant the biological parents of a child, regardless of whether they were married. (This solved prior legal questions over the rights of so-called "illegitimate children" when it came to their fathers.) The 1973 version of the act also declared that the term "parent" could apply to an adult who'd gone through the legal adoption process.more or less aligned with reality: "Parent" meant the biological parents of a child, regardless of whether they were married. (This solved prior legal questions over the rights of so-called "illegitimate children" when it came to their fathers.) The 1973 version of the act also declared that the term "parent" could apply to an adult who'd gone through the legal adoption process. In 2002, as assisted reproductive technologies were becoming more popular and sophisticated, several states started to update their Uniform Parentage Act. The definition of "parent" was stretched to include adults with no biological relation to a child or legal adoption papers, but who had obtained the child through sperm donation, egg donation, surrogacy or some combination thereof. The negotiations didn't stop there. Despite promises by activists, lobbyists, and judges that gay marriage had everything to do with consenting adults and nothing to do with bearing children, the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges renewed calls to revise the Uniform Parentage Act again. As Katy Faust, Founder and Director of the children's rights organization Them Before Us predicted, "When you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become optional in parenthood." That's the way many legislators saw it, too. After Obergefell, multiple states revised the legal definition of "parent" under their Uniform Parentage Act again. In these states, unmarried same-sex partners of people with a child can be legally recognized as that child's parent, even without going through the adoption process. Many of these states also allow something called "pre-birth orders" in surrogacy, which allows the couple paying a surrogate mother to apply for legal custody of that mother's baby up to three months before the birth. It's not just that the stakeholder with everything to lose in these negotiations—the children—aren't at the negotiating table, their rights aren't even considered. If the Church is to continue its long history of defending and protecting children, especially in eras of extreme sexual exploitation, we'll need to pay attention to this issue, show up for them, and demand their rights are considered. As Christians, we accept that the One in charge of the definition of "parent" is the One who created the process by which we become one. Whether or not we are Christians, biology requires a man and a woman to create a child, even if some find these mechanics discriminatory or unjust. Despite our best attempts to separate sex from procreation, which Obergefell codified into law, it simply cannot be done. Same-sex relationships cannot produce children. Children need both a mother and a father. These things remain true even if you reject the God who created the world this way. At the same time, the Bible acknowledges that the desire for children is both natural and good. God repeatedly honors that desire throughout Scripture, sometimes despite biological challenges like age or infertility. And, at other times, God does not give the gift of children, even to those who desperately desire them. This tells us that despite the real pain of childlessness, children are not a right. They are, as the Bible calls them, a blessing. They come when God wills;. When we venture outside His created design for children, whether through assisted reproduction or redefining the word "parent" to reflect adult desire, we intentionally sever a child's relationship to either their mother, their father, or both. By treating children as our "right," we violate theirs. If our culture persists in negotiating the rights and terms of children's' lives, children deserve a seat at the table. That's exactly what Katy Faust at Them Before Us is providing. I hope you'll check out her work and get involved at thembeforeus.com.

John explains the reason the Colson Center is involved in the group Evangelicals and Catholics Together. A listener asks what the group does and what recent developments have come out of the organization. Shane pushes John to answer a question from a listener he knows about praying for one's enemies. And to start the show John outlines the challenges present in China's worldview after a listener asks for clarity on a video he shows to his students. -- Resources -- Making Sense of Your World: a Biblical Worldview John Stonestreet, Bill Brown, & Gary Phillips | Sheffield Publishing Shelby Houston Speech at Father's Funeral Emanuel Mother Emanuel Documentary The Ring Makes all the Difference Glenn Stanton

"If liberty means anything at all," wrote George Orwell in the original preface to Animal Farm, "it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Recently, the University of Northampton demonstrated where they stand on that matter, adding a trigger warning to another iconic Orwell book 1984. Students are now warned that Orwell's seminal critique of totalitarianism, censorship, and thought control might contain material some find "offensive and upsetting." You just can't make this up. For the record, strong evidence indicates that trigger warnings do not prevent feelings of trauma and can even have the opposite effect of heightening emotional vulnerability to potentially scary or offensive content. On a much deeper level, we're simply walking in the way Orwell warned against. It's the dark side of an expressive individualism devoid of any deeper truth. Eventually, embracing an ideology that tells us to create our own realities will only lead us to cancel anyone who threatens them.