Breakpoint

There's a new genre of literature that most people have never heard of: "hopepunk." Coined in 2017 by fantasy author Alexandra Rowland, "hopepunk" was a reaction to a different kind of writing dominating the market that year, a genre that Rowland and others refer to as "grimdark." Grimdark emphasizes the cruelty that so often defines human interaction. Think, for example, of HBO's hit series Game of Thrones, a show which hit its highwater mark in 2017 and capitalized on a trifecta of gore, nudity, and nihilism. AMC's The Walking Dead and the more recent Netflix global hit Squid Game are also examples of shows that attempt to portray the very worst of human nature as graphically as possible. In contrast, "Hopepunk," wrote Rowland in a line that captured the attention of the internet, "is the opposite of Grimdark." And then she added, "Pass it on." After that post went viral, she elaborated further: "Hopepunk says that genuinely and sincerely caring about something, anything, requires bravery and strength. It's about demanding a better, kinder world, and truly believing that we can get there if we care about each other as hard as we possibly can." Since she invented the label, bloggers have retroactively applied it to works like Terry Pratchett's Discworld series and J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. In a sense, the term applies to works that attempt to answer a vital existential question of the human condition: Is there really any hope? This question is especially relevant in a culture experiencing record levels of depression and purposelessness. One source for ascertaining the hopefulness of a culture is its stories. Consider the Greek myth of Pandora's Box, penned by Hesiod in 700 B.C. In it, the gods place all of the world's evils in a box and give them to Pandora, the first woman. When she cracks the lid, they escape into the world and the jar is emptied, except for one thing: hope, which is captured before it can escape. The story raises a haunting question: Was the hope left in Pandora's box a good, or an evil? Is hope legitimate, or is it merely a trick of the gods designed to induce more suffering? The Stoics believed that hope was foolish. Anticipating future joy leaves humanity vulnerable to all kinds of disappointment and miscalculation. As Seneca wrote, quoting his friend Hecato, "Cease to hope, and you will cease to fear." This makes sense in a worldview where neither nature nor the gods are particularly benevolent. All that remains for humanity is hedonism, the ancient ideal of a heroic death, or a joyless, gritty stoicism. Within a secular worldview, the challenge remains. How can there be any real hope if there's no God, or any basis for ultimate things such as purpose, right, wrong, good, evil, reward, or justice? Indeed, if we do live in such a world where, as Bertrand Russell famously put it, "…Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins…" If Russell is correct about the world, it's hard to argue with his conclusion that "only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." In fact, two years after writing her viral post advocating "hopepunk," Rowland's idea of hope seemed to have slipped toward cynicism. "Those are the words of a person cloaked in a story that hasn't yet been worn threadbare and ragged," she admits. One gets the sense that although she wants to hope, she just cannot find a reason to hope. Of course, the stories that originally inspired her to hope are grounded in a much better worldview. Unlike armchair nihilists like George R.R. Martin (whose books were the basis for Game of Thrones), J.R.R. Tolkien actually experienced the brutality of war. In the trenches of World War I, he lost all but one of his childhood friends, even while Western Europe was reduced to a muddy, hellish burial ground. That may have been, in fact, the inspiration for his fictional realm of Mordor. Yet, even in his grief, Tolkien believed in something deeper, a way things should be. Sam and Frodo stuck to their grueling quest to destroy the ring not from an existentialist "hope in hope itself," but from a full awareness that good and evil are real, nothing is accidental, and some things are worth fighting for. Years later, Tolkien would sum up his basis for hope in a poem. "The heart of Man is not compound of lies, but draws some wisdom from the only Wise, and still recalls him. Though now long estranged, Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed. Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned." In other words, hope stems from what is true and because of what is true, what is possible. That's why, ultimately, hope is so powerful. There is life and light. There is a way out of chaos into a new day. All that is sad can be made untrue. Only that level of truth can carry us when the world is darkest and we are weakest.

In a recent essay, Oxford Professor Roger Crisp toyed with the idea that human extinction may not be a bad thing after all. With so much suffering on Earth, he argues, if NASA were to locate a massive asteroid hurtling towards our planet, we would be justified in letting it obliterate us. "I am not claiming that extinction would be good;" Crisp clarified, "only that, since it might be, we should devote a lot more attention to thinking about the value of extinction than we have to date." This is an Oxford philosopher of ethics, but he's wrestling with an idea that long ago left the ivory tower. Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute put it this way: "With our supposedly best minds suggesting that human extinction could be desirable, is it any wonder that so many of our young people seem to be despairing?" When God is taken out of the moral picture, reason evaporate, as does the rest of our moral logic. Someone tell Bruce Willis and the rest of his team from Armageddon, the mission is off.

In his book The Last Word, atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel talked about "the fear of religion": "… I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." This "cosmic authority problem," Nagel thought, was at the root of modern attempts to explain everything by science. Today, 45 years, and more than a few other factors later, has evolved into what might be called a "cultural authority problem." Its roots lie not only in the philosophical denials of God and His authority that Nagel wrote about but also in what Pope Benedict once referred to as "the dictatorship of relativism … which recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the 'I' and its whims as the ultimate measure…" And, of course, upon these ideological foundations, we've all had the experience of living in the Information Age, being forced to navigate a dizzying amount of information daily and the many voices constantly vying for our pocketbooks and attention (often by any means necessary). Even before the chaos of the last 24 months, there has been more than enough to spur on our collective distrust. Still, on top of all that, what social institution in American life hasn't failed us in recent years? The state, churches, education, corporations, big tech, news, even medicine… we don't trust any of them anymore. To some degree, skepticism of authority is understandable, even commendable. And, when healthy, it's a necessary ingredient of discernment, a skill required of anyone who wishes not to be brainwashed today. Increasingly, however, skepticism has been replaced by cynicism and is expressed in an immediate distrust anytime anyone tells us anything to think or do. This is not healthy or sustainable, nor is it a biblical way of thinking about authority. If we begin from a Biblical Story instead of the chaos of our cultural moment, we must grant that authority is a God-given feature of life in this world. Beginning with God, the ultimate authority, the Bible describes how God also ordained other authorities, especially His image-bearers. Of course, unlike God, all of these ordained authorities have been twisted and compromised by the Fall. At the same time, the fact that the Bible continues to recognize (even after the fall) both God's authority and the, should chasten us whenever our discernment is replaced by cynicism. And there's an awful lot of cynicism these days. Is it possible for Christians to be discerning without being cynical? If so, how? Are there ways to respect authority without being duped? Can we recognize the collapse of our institutions without wholly abandoning them, and perhaps seek to restore them? Christians must answer these questions as part of our cultural witness. Certain existential questions rise to the surface in specific cultural contexts. For example, at a time of tragedy, the question on the top of the cultural surface tends to be, where was God? At this moment, in a culture with a cosmic authority problem, the question is, who can we trust? To help us think through the cultural crisis of authority and the loss of trust, the Colson Center will be hosting a special virtual short course beginning next Tuesday night, February 8. Each of the sessions will feature a presentation and a time for live Q&A. The first three weeks will be led by Dr. Bruce Ashford and will cover the topics of "God's Authority and the Authorities He Has Ordained," "Where Did the Crisis of Authority and Trust Come From?" and "How to Cultivate Discernment in an Untrustworthy World." The fourth week will be led by Dr. Yuval Levin, a scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, who will help us think about the collapse of our cultural institutions and what it would look like to rebuild them. He's an example of a scholar who can inform Christians on how to think about life in this cultural moment. Each of the four sessions will be recorded and distributed to all who sign up for the course. To register for this course, "The Loss of Trust and the Crisis of Authority," please visit colsoncenter.org/events.

Os Guinness shared an important message at a recent Colson Center event in Phoenix, Arizona. He spoke to the situation of the church in this cultural moment, where institutions are failing and people are losing trust. Os offered a way forward, for Christians to ground themselves in truth, repentance, and forgiveness. Out of this event, the Colson Center is launching a short course on the loss of trust and our crisis of authority. Society needs a Christian response to the breakdown we are witnessing in nearly every societal institution. The church has an answer and to help encourage Christians with clarity, confidence, and courage in this moment, we are offering a special short course in February. For more information visit www.colsoncenter.org/events The Loss of Trust and Our Crisis of Authority

Recently, online magazine Fatherly sent out this prompt to their readers: "What would you tell your younger self about being a dad?" The answers are worth sharing. "It only gets better." wrote one 39-year-old from Vancouver. "I wasn't ready for my prior life to end until I held my baby on the first day…. There's a place for having fun while you're young, but don't think that's meant to be it. Life really starts to get good when you feel your children enjoying your presence and loving every minute, they spend with you." Another dad agreed. "Once you're knee-deep in the reality of raising a baby all the seemingly 'boring' milestones feel incredible." Of the nation's 73 million children, "1 in 4 live without a biological, step or adoptive father in the home," the National Fatherhood Initiative tells us. That absence is felt in every measurable category of child well-being. And it's a tragedy for men too. Our culture tells us that caring for others is a burden on our true happiness, but Scripture - and the wisdom of experience - tell a different story. Just ask the dads.

Anabaptist theologian Stanley Hauerwas once said that in 100 years, if Christians are known as those who do not kill their children or their elderly, we would have been doing something right. May we, in fact, be known for nothing less than these things, but I hope we'll be known for far more. Specifically, Christians must be known as those who acknowledge created reality, in particular the goodness of the human body. This won't be easy. Unthinkable a couple decades ago, it's now normal to deny the purpose, the meaning, and the goodness of the human body. Increasingly the body is seen, not as a given of reality, but as a fully morphable canvas of self-expression. Not only do we celebrate unnatural ways of using it, we see it as something to be reinvented and remodeled, even mutilated if that allows us to "be ourselves." Because Christians believe in a world created by God, including the human body, we must not allow what is considered normal to seem normal to us. We might be shocked and grieved, but we should always point to the truth of who we are, and oppose these ideas which destroy and degrade, rather than liberate, human beings. Any culture that denies what our bodies reveal about who we are must work hard to suppress the overwhelming evidence of reality. At times, like beach balls pushed below the water, this evidence re-emerges. For example, just before Christmas, New York Magazine released an issue with a cover photo of a person with a beard and body hair, wearing nothing but briefs, staring at readers. A massive scar dominates one leg. The headline reads: "My Penis, Myself: I didn't need a penis to be a man. But I needed one to be me." The person in the photo is a woman. The organ in question was surgically constructed using flesh taken from her leg. The author and subject describe her "transmasculine" surgery, performed in a San Francisco hospital, in full detail. The procedure was potentially life-threatening and involved physicians doing things that, in any other surgical context, would be considered harm, not help. The result of the surgery was not a male body, but a wounded and disfigured female body. The author is now in near constant pain, and in constant danger of infection or rejection. Even so, this dysphoric woman viewed the process as a liberation from her own body. By portraying this procedure as a surgery rather than an act of harm, and by portraying the choice to undergo the procedure as heroic rather than heartbreaking, New York Magazine bypasses any real discussion about a host of related ideas, ideas about sex, gender, humanity, morality, medicine, and more. At the same time, the cover photo, of a largely exposed woman with horrific scarring, points to truths that, in the end, cannot be suppressed. This movement is, in reality, an assault on humanity. The bad ideas behind the movement leave victims in their wake. In a sort of gnostic remix, these ideas reject the most basic of created realities. Christians, who believe that God called our bodies "good," must continue to point to what is true. First, we must point out that there are very real scars left when people deny reality. And second, we must point those with these scars to Christ, the One whose scars can make them whole again. Back in June, an episode of "Blue's Clues and You" earned applause for featuring a pride parade of LGBT-identifying animals. Only later did viewers notice that one cartoon beaver, waving a trans pride flag, had scars like those of women who've had what's called "top surgery." A Nickelodeon spokesperson confirmed that the producers' intent was to teach young children that this "surgery" is normal, and if women wish to have healthy breasts removed in order to mimic men, they should. To point out that this sort of message, aimed at children, is body shaming and abusive will inevitably mean being called "transphobic," "bigoted," and "hateful." We may be cancelled. But to be silent is not to be loving. Rather, it is to be complicit in harm. In this cultural moment, faithfulness to Christ involves not just declaring salvation but defending creation; not just preaching how men and women can be saved but that men and women exist. Churches will need to include extensive and thorough education on what it means to be made in God's image, why He made us male and female, and the difference that makes in modern culture. All of which will mean proclaiming obvious, now unfashionable truths. But, given the damage being done by denying those truths, it's the only loving thing to do.

Maria asks John to revisit a few commentaries from the week, specifically our piece recognizing Holocaust Remembrance Day and a new report on the state of Christians passing on the faith to younger believers. Then John explains the significance of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's retirement and what him stepping down does to the court. He also explains how President Biden will likely respond, based on campaign promises. To close, Maria asks John about a recent comment from author Jordan Peterson who made a startlingly insightful observation about the Bible. John shares why Jordan Peterson is a person Maria should recognize and care about and why this comment is important to consider. -- Show Stories -- Holocaust Remembrance Day Christians, in fact, should always be quick to counter any hatred or desecration poured out on any of our fellow image bearers, including those through whom God revealed His Word and brought His Son into His world. Having met on the 80th anniversary of Wanassee Conference, the European Coalition for Israel, issued a Declaration entitled: "Fight Antisemitism, Protect Jewish Life." It's worth a read, especially at a time when so much of the world seems at risk of forgetting. BreakPoint>> Passing On the Faith: Good News and Bad News "Human beings look separate because you see them walking about separately," wrote C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. But, "if you could see humanity spread out in time, as God sees it, it would look like one single growing thing-rather like a very complicated tree. Every individual would appear connected with every other."BreakPoint>> A Conservatism Without Marriage & Family Is No Conservatism At All Any political vision that treats marriage and family as optional or fungible, even if it goes by the label "conservative," is destined to fail. This isn't a matter of updating our definitions. If we lose our belief in marriage and the family as the foundation of a healthy and flourishing society, there will soon be very little left for "conservatives" to conserve.BreakPoint>> Stephen Breyer, pragmatic liberal, will retire at end of term As a justice, Breyer's demeanor and questions during oral arguments often conjured up comparisons to an absent-minded professor. One legendary hypothetical, in 2003, posited that a sign barring "all animals" from a park would not include a "pet oyster." A year later, in a case involving federal efforts to ban medical marijuana, Breyer raised the specter of "tomato children that will eventually affect Boston." But if Breyer – who majored in philosophy as an undergraduate at Stanford University – sometimes came across as an academic on the bench, he was at the same time both a member of the court's liberal wing and, as his former law clerk Kevin Russell told USA Today, "unapologetically pragmatic in thinking that it's the court's job to help make government work for real people." SCOTUS Blog>> How Biden will choose the next Supreme Court nominee With today's reporting that Justice Stephen Breyer intends to retire, we now kick off our analysis of potential nominees to replace him. President Joe Biden previously promised to nominate a Black woman, and we assume he will keep that commitment. Two potential nominees therefore stand apart from all others: Leondra Kruger, a justice on the California Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Both are well known to the White House team that will lead the nomination process. Kruger is a former Department of Justice attorney. Biden recently appointed Jackson to the court of appeals. SCOTUS Blog>> Jordan Peterson's Realization About the Bible "The meaning of the words is coded in the relationship of the words to one another. And, Postmodernists make that case, that all meaning is derived from the relationship between words. That's wrong, because what about "rage?" That's not words. What about moving your hand, that's not words. It's wrong, but part of it's right because the meaning we derive from the verbal domain is encoded in the relationship between words. So, now you think, "let's think about the relationship between words." Some words are dependent on other words and some ideas are dependent on other ideas. The more ideas are dependent on a given idea the more fundamental that idea is, that's a definition of fundamental. So now, imagine you have an aggregation of texts in civilization, and you say, "which are the fundamental texts?" and the answer is the texts upon which most other texts depend. So, you put Shakespeare's way in there because so many texts are dependent on Shakespeare's literary revelations. Milton would be in that category, and Dante would be in that category - at least in translation. (They're) fundamental authors, part of the western canon, not because of the arbitrary dictates of power, but because those texts influenced more other texts. Then, you think about that as a hierarchy, with the Bible at its base, which is certainly the case. Imagine that's the entire corpus of linguistic production, all things considered. Now, how do you understand that? Literally, how do you understand that? You sample that by reading and listening to stories and hearing how people talk. You sample that whole domain and you build a low-resolution reputation of that inside you and then you listen and see through that. And so it isn't that the Bible is true, it's that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth. Which makes it way more true than just truth. It'a a whole different kind of truth. Joe Rogan Experience Podcast>> -- InShow Mentions -- Fight Antisemitism Defend Jewish Life Summit Ministries Impact 360 Worldview Academy -- Recommendations -- Too Prevalent to Track Maria Baer | The World and Everything in It | January 27, 2022 Women of the Movement ABC Series | January, 2022

Last week, an Oklahoma state representative who describes himself as a "pragmatic progressive" announced on Twitter, "This week I filed HB3129, which codifies that a father's financial responsibility to his baby and their mom begins at conception. If Oklahoma is going to restrict a woman's right to choose, we sure better make sure the man involved can't just walk away from his responsibility." What he intended as a gotcha instead went viral with pro-lifers. They loved the proposal, and filled his feed with memes saying "your terms are acceptable." The only resistance to the law came from pro-abortion allies. Quickly and furiously, the lawmaker backpedaled with a follow-up tweet: "I understand how the language in my message and bill both hurt the cause instead of helping it, and I apologize for not being more thoughtful…." It's just amazing that so many still claim and so many still buy the whole "pro-lifers only care about babies before birth" nonsense, but they do. Which means, we must continue to refute this silly narrative, in both word and deed.

There's a new ad playing on radio stations in Ohio as part of a PR push called the Stop the Stigma campaign. The ad is a game show skit, where contestants must guess the biggest risk factor for substance addiction. One guesses "making bad choices" and gets the buzzer; another guesses "hanging out with the wrong people" and is also wrong. The right answer, we're told, is family history. Ohio officials said the ads are meant to encourage people to "practice empathy, not judgment" for people suffering from addiction. That's wise advice. And research does show there is a strong genetic component to addiction. But research also shows that making unwise choices and spending time with others who are making unwise choices also unequivocally contribute to addiction. In a similar vein, USA Today recently ran a story about the latest research on pedophilia, quoting scientists who say the sexual disorder is "determined in the womb" and therefore "misunderstood" by our culture. The implication is that when something evil is "inherent," it carries a different — or no —moral weight. The first mistake here is the suggestion that we can have empathy for or compassion on people who do something wrong only when they "couldn't help it." That's both naive and wrong. None of us is immune from sinful desires; that's the fall. But none of us is helpless against our sinful desires, either; despite genetic components or elevated risk factors — that's the redemption of Jesus. That's why the Bible tells us to "flee" from sin; even when sin "feels" natural. Paul tells the Galatians the desires of the flesh are in conflict with the Spirit. He doesn't say "therefore you are helpless." or "do good things to cancel out the bad." He says we must "crucify the flesh." Still, even when we lose that battle, God offers grace and forgiveness and commands us to do the same. People who do bad things deserve appropriate compassion and help not because they supposedly "can't help it;" but simply because they are human beings, made in the image of God. But we also deserve the dignity of facing the consequences of our actions. The second mistake in efforts to "stop the stigma" of bad behavior is the suggestion that those consequences, as well as healthy guilt and even shame, can't play a motivating role in our moral formation. The Bible testifies that it does. Friends of mine who have recovered from addiction or who are active in addiction ministry all say that the cliche is true: the first step to recovery really is admitting you have a problem. We block that important step if we try to convince those suffering that they bear no responsibility for their behavior. My friend Dr. Matthew Sleeth, and emergency room physician who wrote a book about the Christian response to suicide, spoke to our Wilberforce Weekend audience last year about his research. He said the common denominator that he found in testimonies from those who survived a suicide attempt or ultimately chose not to go through with it was that they believed, to one degree or another, that suicide would be wrong. But that assertion that something could be wrong requires a consistent moral standard against which we can measure our inclinations and behavior. Christianity - not cultural tastes - is the only worldview that offers a fully formed and consistent moral standard; built on God's design for the world. I want to be clear here that the chemical components, including genetic predispositions, and even outside factors like predatory pharmaceutical companies are very real contributors to things like suicide and addiction. But removing stigma by suggesting people aren't still responsible for their moral choices forfeits that very real and apparently motivating sense that we don't want to do something wrong. This is a casualty of a culture that continues to distance itself from its Christian moral foundation. Some theologians suggest the loss of "cultural Christianity" is good, in that it will reveal those truly committed to Jesus, as opposed to those only claiming Christianity for its social advantages. But the loss of cultural Christianity will still leave much to mourn, including the healthy social norms and stigmas, based on the Biblical moral standard, that protect us from our inherent sinfulness. Christians should always practice empathy. And we should be ready to help when and where it's appropriate. That kind of love holds room for healthy stigma, and it doesn't require pretending there are no consequences to our choices. That's the deep, consistent love of the gospel.

Most of the time, Twitter's a wasteland, a dark world of rancor, recriminations, and moral posturing. But every once in a while, to quote the classic movie Dumb and Dumber, it goes and redeems itself… Anthony Bradley, professor at The King's College in New York, recently noted on Twitter that most father/son photos on social media are of younger sons. It's like they stop once the boy hits teenage years, the time when a father's influence becomes most crucial in a young man's development. So he challenged dads to celebrate their teenage sons by posting photos with the hashtag #ThisIsMyBelovedTeenageSon. And proud dads, from all walks of life, did, proudly posing with their sons for all the world to see. Good for them. Popular culture portrays fathers in such diminished, negative ways, but studies consistently show not only that dads matter, but that they're essentially for flourishing. The full family of mom and dad is part of God's blessing to people everywhere.