Breakpoint

This week, the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) canceled all tournaments in China. The move was a protest against the Chinese Communist Party's censorship of missing tennis star Peng Shuai. The unprecedented move will likely cost the organization hundreds of millions in revenue. But, it's also the right move. Peng Shuai went missing after publicly claiming that she was sexually assaulted by a high-ranking government official. After a flood of international alarm, China finally produced rudimentary evidence of Peng Shuai's safety. But, it wasn't enough. "While we now know where Peng is, I have serious doubts that she is free, safe, and not subject to censorship, coercion, and intimidation," said WTA chief executive Steve Simon. The WTA's courageous response is tragically rare. Former U.S. Ambassador at large Kelly Eckels Currie put it best: "​​If you had told me a week-and-a-half ago that the Women's Tennis Association was going to be the most effective and bravest human rights organization in the world, I would have thought you were bananas… but here we are." Now, will the rest of the world join in?

John and Maria revisit the oral arguments for the Dobbs v. Jackson from the Supreme Court earlier this week. John shares insight from Ryan Anderson, who recently explained the impact of this case on the BreakPoint Podcast. Maria then reports on the school shooting in Oxford, Michigan. She briefly tells a story being reported of a father whose son was killed in the shooting. The father reportedly told a friend when the two couldn't locate his son that, Tate, the son, is the kind of person who would run towards the shooter. John and Maria discuss manhood and the importance of fathering in this cultural moment. -- Story References -- Segment 1: The Changing Landscape of Being Pro-Choice Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could upend Roe v. Wade. At the very least, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization is the most significant challenge to legalized abortion to date. In question in a Mississippi law known as the Gestational Age Act. If the court decides the law should stand, the power to determine and limit abortion rights would effectively be returned to the states. The long battle over abortion in America has had many chapters. For years, most advocates of legalized abortion argued they were not really pro-abortion. Abortion, they claimed, was not a good thing, but women should have the right to decide whether or not to carry a baby to term. The painful decision to have an abortion, continued the rhetoric, is always tragic, but a woman must retain autonomy over her own body and health.BreakPoint> Oral Arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Point to a Post-Roe Future Today, on a very special edition of the BreakPoint podcast, I talk with Dr. Ryan Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) located in Washington, D.C. about the case, the oral arguments, and what the future could hold. BreakPoint>> Segment 2: Michigan Suspect's Parents Met With School Hours Before Shooting Prosecutors said the 15-year-old boy accused of killing four classmates at Oxford High School in suburban Detroit on Tuesday had planned the attack "well before the incident." The suspect, a 15-year-old boy who was charged with murder in the deaths of four students, had no previous juvenile record. But school officials had concerns about his behavior in the classroom. NY Times>> Anthony Bradley on Michigan ShootingSuburban 15-year-old boys have been shooting up their high schools since 1999. There is a clear profile that explains why this 20+year pattern repeats. Girls don't do this. Yet, when we say "There's a boy crisis" no one believes us. Why don't we want to focus on helping boys? Twitter>>

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the most significant challenge to Roe v. Wade to date. The anticipation surrounding Dobbs, on both sides of the abortion issue, has been palpable. And, what happened at the Supreme Court on Wednesday did not disappoint. Today, on a very special edition of the BreakPoint podcast, John talks with Dr. Ryan Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) located in Washington, D.C. about the case, the oral arguments, and what the future could hold. Anderson is a legal scholar and public intellectual. In our conversation, Ryan described the highlights from Wednesday and clarified why this case is so significant.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the most significant challenge to Roe v. Wade to date. The anticipation surrounding Dobbs, on both sides of the abortion issue, has been palpable. Wednesday's performance did not disappoint. Today, on a very special edition of the BreakPoint podcast, I talk with Dr. Ryan Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) located in Washington, D.C.. Anderson is a legal scholar and public intellectual. In our conversation, Ryan described the highlights from Wednesday and clarified why why this case is so significant: It was very telling that both of the two liberal justices who spoke, Sonia Sotomayor and [Stephen] Breyer, and the two pro choice advocates in the courtroom, they never really tried to defend "Roe" or "Casey" on the merits. The only things they appealed to are Stare Decisis; respect for precedent, the respectability of the court. "What would happen, the backlash, if we admit that we were wrong?" "We would look political…" The most important response there is that if the previous ruling was wrong, the way that something like "Plessy v. Ferguson" was wrong, it only does further damage to the court to say. "But we're going to uphold it anyway." That's where you're looking political; that's where you're not doing law anymore. And, so, there was several really good exchanges where Justice Alito was really, "Wait, so we couldn't have pushed back on that?" Brett Kavanaugh was also very good on this. He cited a whole string of cases where he said "[there were] dozens of major Supreme Court cases where the court overturned a bad ruling and actually, finally, got the constitution correct. And that's how we show our independence. That's how we show that we're lawyers practicing law and we're not politicians, were not doing public opinion. We're not doing public policy." And, so I just think the response there is "Roe" and "Casey" were wrongly decided the day that they were decided. They've done grave harm to the constitution, but more importantly, they allowed grave injustices to unborn human beings. And any moment that we wait is a moment too long to finally get rid of them. Perhaps the most important point Dr. Anderson made in our conversation is that if Roe v Wade is overturned, it's not the finish line for the pro-life movement. In reality, it's a new starting point, which will necessitate new efforts both in public policy and civil society. A post-Roe future demands more humane politics, and extra efforts on a local level to support both pre-born children and the women who find themselves in unexpected pregnancies. Again, here's Dr. Anderson: I think we're going to need to have a good kind of public policy. You know, child tax credits, paid family leave, things like that. That make it easier for families to form and for mothers to choose life. We need the public policy part of this. We also need the civil society part of this. I'm a both-and type of guy, and I think the pro-life movement at its best has been both-and on this. We want good public policy. I can't remember now who the sponsor is in the house, [but] he said we should extend, expand the child tax credit to include the nine months in the womb so that, rather than at birth, it kicks-in at conception. There are simple tweaks like that, that could make a difference in a family's life. We need to be thinking creatively on the policy side and on the civil society side. One particular pro-abortion argument presented during Wednesday's oral arguments is one that is commonly repeated on social media, or in conversation with friends and neighbors who support abortion: that abortion is necessary if women are going to fully participate in society as equal citizens. During our conversation, Dr. Ryan Anderson addressed this argument thoroughly: A world in which women rely on abortion, or women need abortion, is a sign that we have failed women. That's not a sign of women empowerment. That's not a sign of female equality. That is a sign that we have structured our society in which the male body is normative, in which women are somehow defective males and we've structured our economy, our education system, around my body as if it's the norm and that my wife's body is somehow flawed. The scholar who's doing the best work on this is actually one of my colleagues at the EPPC (Ethics and Public Policy Center), Erika Bachiochi. I kind of want to cite my sources on this. She published an excellent book earlier this year, titled "The Rights of Women" where she more or less traces the lost history of feminism. There was an early strand of feminism that emphasized that men and women are equal in dignity, but they're not the same; that there are two equal ways of imaging God, two equal ways of being human. Our law, our policies, our culture need to respect both of these ways of being human, and we need to craft law, policy, and cultural practices that support that. That's not the way that the modern feminist movement went. They went the route of "equality means sameness," which meansvwomen need to succeed on the same terms as men. And that means we need to more or less sterilize ourselves. This is where someone like Mary Eberstadt is really good, on how contraception and abortion are kind of like the sacraments of the modern feminist movement. Another response to that is Mississippi's law, the 15-week law. The vast majority of European countries have 12-week prohibitions on abortion. Are women, there suffering? Are they failing to flourish? Are they failing to have equality and dignity, and all the other buzzwords? So, it's just very interesting to to hear the abortion advocates making it seem like Mississippi's law would be so terrible for female equality and for female dignity. The Mississippi law is actually more progressive than the average European law, and they [pro-choice advocates] don't think Europe is a bunch of backwards, Bible-thumping, blah, blah, blah. So, I think this is both a huge opportunity, but more importantly, it's a huge obligation for the pro-life movement, to serve these women, to serve these mothers, to show that if you need abortion then we have failed you. And that, in actual reality, you don't need abortion. And we can have duties such that you won't need abortion, and we have to fulfill those duties. To listen to the full conversation, with a full analysis by Dr. Ryan Anderson of the oral arguments in what could be the most significant Supreme Court case of our lifetime, come to breakpoint.org or find the BreakPoint podcast on whatever podcast service you use.

Not that long ago, what we ate was considered a matter of personal preference. Our sexual behavior, on the other hand, was considered a matter of morality that required regulating. Times have changed. In every society throughout history, sex has been seen as a moral matter of public concern. A primary reason for that is sex can result in children. So, it has implications for the community. With the advent of contraception and the popularizing of abortion, sex is no longer seen as a public moral issue, but only a matter of personal choice and consent. On the other hand, food is now increasingly seen as a moral issue, because of the ecological implications of food production and the promotion of personal health as an ultimate good. Scripture tells us that while we should steward our bodies, all foods are acceptable if received with thanksgiving, and that God designs our sexuality with purpose and with guardrails to keep it from becoming toxic. In other words, when we worship the creation instead of the creator, everything gets turned back to the front.

Every single person, including those who struggle with who they are, are made in the image and likeness of God. However much someone can be mistaken in their self-understanding, whatever they've done to add to their own confusion, they're still infinitely valuable and worthy of the fullest expressions of our love and care. This includes every person, within the growing population of people who identify as transgender. Because of this, it is important to say, definitively, that radical transgender ideology is destructive, harmful, and disconnected from reality. We are told, of course, that anything less than fully embracing radical transgender ideology is actually what is harmful. We frequently hear, for example, that people who identify as transgender are the most vulnerable group in the world, and that critiquing transgender ideology is committing violent discrimination. But how true are these claims? In October, Madison Smith, with the UK Critic, wrote about the claim that those who identify as transgender are the most "marginalized, abused and vulnerable group in the world." After reviewing the data, Smith concluded "...even though we've seen a sharp rise in the number of people who identify as transgender in the last few years, a trans person hasn't been murdered in the UK for nearly three years." Furthermore, "there are no reports ever of a trans person in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland being murdered." Journalist Anna Slatz elaborates further, "According to Human Rights Campaign's running list of trans deaths [in the U.S.], only two [are] being investigated as potential hate crimes." Despite this, the group categorizes all 44 of the deaths as hate crimes, "even when they had nothing to do with being transgender at all." Any death is tragic because every human has inherent value. Any act of violence against transgender people, including any act perpetuated for being transgender, is unacceptable. But that's precisely the point Smith and Slatz are making: the reports of widespread trans-phobic violence don't add up. Instead, they're being used as a bludgeon to silence anyone who criticizes trans ideology. According to this view, it's the inner self that matters, so people must change their bodies to accommodate their dysphoria. It's assumed that unless society encourages people with gender confusion in their confusion to undergo such surgery, we are guilty of violence against them. The awful truth and irony here are that the current practices of transgender treatment in medicine cause physical harm. In his book When Harry Became Sally, Ryan T. Anderson argues that anywhere between 80-95 percent of children who say they are transgender eventually abandon those feelings by late adolescence. For many today, waiting until after adolescence will be too late. They will have been encouraged by the adults around them to do real, irreversible damage to their minds and bodies. This is why Christians need to remember that love for our neighbors, especially the most vulnerable ones, must include telling the truth. As more and more stories of de-transitioners emerge, we hear from people who regret the invasive procedures of gender transition. They report long-term side effects of testosterone injections and surgical mutilations. Many of them are affected by anxiety, depression, and suicidal intention. We have to tell their stories. Even if many in the larger culture wish these people did not exist, their inherent dignity and value demand that they be heard. For the love of God and neighbor, Christians must have the courage to speak the truth, even about this very difficult and socially risky issue for the love of God and neighbor. We do so not because we want to be right but because the Gospel is a message of hope. It's a message that says we need not be victims of the power of bad ideas, and our minds need not be captive to destructive ideologies which tell us our bodies are secondary, malleable, or irrelevant. The Gospel offers what we need, forgiveness and holiness, a new identity, and a clean start. The swelling numbers of young people identifying as LGBTQ should tell us that captivity to great confusion is a culture-wide phenomenon today. At the same time, we must never lose sight that the victims of the bad ideas are individuals, especially children. They must know what Christ has to offer them. Consider the late Sy Rogers, who, after beginning what was at that time avant-garde, hormone therapy through Johns Hopkins medicine, detransitioned and found new life in Christ. He died two years ago now, a married father and grandfather, faithfully walking out the Christian ethic of sexuality, even as he called LGBTQ people to a new encounter with the God who made them - and loves them. That message of the possibilities of grace, grounded in steadfast truth and Christ's love, is needed now more than ever, especially as people deal with the fallout of destructive trans-narratives around us. For the sake of God and neighbor, we, of all people, must not "live by lies."

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is crafting a new rule that could force religious employers, insurers, and healthcare providers to pay for and provide, among other things, gender transitions. The National Catholic Register broke the story. According to court filings, progressive activist groups demanded HHS expand its definition of discrimination "based on sex" to include gender identity. This would reverse the narrower Trump Administration rule, which provided religious exemptions. It turns out these groups, which included Planned Parenthood and the Southern Poverty Law Center, were part of a "task force" advising the HHS on its new rule. According to The Catholic Benefits Association, if HHS follows these groups' recommendations, "it would effectively remove all religious considerations from issues around life, family, marriage, the very nature of men and women," forcing religious healthcare providers to choose between their convictions and their existence. This would be disastrous, and as far as religious freedom goes, it's an all-hands-on-deck moment. If Americans' first liberty is to have a meaningful future, this cannot be allowed to happen.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could upend Roe v. Wade. At the very least, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization is the most significant challenge to legalized abortion to date. In question is a Mississippi law known as the Gestational Age Act. If the court decides the law should stand, the power to determine and limit abortion rights would effectively be returned to the states. The long battle over abortion in America has had many chapters. For years, most advocates of legalized abortion argued they were not really pro-abortion. Abortion, they claimed, was not a good thing, but women should have the right to decide whether or not to carry a baby to term. The painful decision to have an abortion, continued the rhetoric, is always tragic, but a woman must retain autonomy over her own body and health. The preferred label for these abortion advocates, "Pro-Choice," has always been problematic. For starters, a pre-born baby has distinct DNA and a separate body. So, abortion involves a body other than just the mother's, and her choice is made for someone else. The baby is not given a choice. Remarkable advances in science and technology over the years eventually dismantled claims made by early abortion advocates that the preborn are not yet human. So, the assertion shifted: preborn humans are not persons. This raised the immediate and historically fraught question of who gets to decide which human beings are persons and which are not? What non-arbitrary criteria can be used to determine personhood? And how can such criteria be applied consistently in a world where one woman mourns a miscarriage, and another deliberately causes a miscarriage?

A few weeks ago, I talked about a claim that we should call God "they" since "He" isn't inclusive enough. A tweet by the Religious News Service recently doubled down on this idea, asserting that Christian churches "lack consensus" about God's pronouns. Lacks consensus? That's a strange statement. That only makes sense if 99.99% of all Christian churches, in all times and places throughout history, don't count as a consensus. If you go around the world and ask Christians from all cultures and all denominations, you'll encounter a lot of different ideas about a lot of other things. Roman Catholics disagree with Presbyterians about church structure, and Anglicans argue with Baptists about baptism. Not only that, but you'll find a delightful degree of diversity when it comes to the way they sing God's praises. But, for all the glorious variety of Christ's Church down through the ages, pretty much the only place you'll get "God is they" theology is in the culturally narrow confines of the wealthy West. For all the disputes Christians have had, the core of the Gospel teaching, including God's pronouns, has remained unchanged since the Apostles.

We cover plenty of news at BreakPoint. Most of our commentaries, in fact, address a breaking story or headline in some way. And, several times a week or more, someone in our audience will ask if we plan to address this or that news story. Sometimes they are asking for our take on a high-profile headline. Other times, they are asking about a story that's been buried in the never-ending news cycle. While we take every request seriously, we aren't always able to follow through on every one of them. In our current news-saturated day, there are always more stories that pop up in newsfeeds than we could possibly cover. The constraints of time and space mean there's only so much we can talk about. And, to be clear, we're not a news organization. That's not what we do. Other organizations are set up to keep us informed about what's going on in the world. Strictly speaking, our mission at BreakPoint is not even to tell people what to think about news stories. If the only outcome of BreakPoint is a group of people repeating what we've said, then we've failed. Our goal is to help guide people in how to think about the world and their place in it. In other words, the headlines and news stories aren't the "what" of BreakPoint; they are the "when" and "where." This cultural moment is the stage of the play, not the plot. The news is where we see ideas and their consequences expressed, both good and bad. It's where the philosophies that were born in ivory towers meet the reality of people's lives, dreams, and decisions. Confusing the noise and chaos of the headlines as the Story of the world is the most common way Christians are lost in them. The latest addition to the LGBT acronym is more than an individual ethical concern; it says something about what it means to be an embodied human being. A Twitterstorm calling for a minor celebrity to be cancelled for something considered innocuous last year but unforgivable this year points to the innate and constant desire for justice within society and the human heart (and reveals how inadequate our basis for that justice is at the moment). Political disputes about abortion, racism, and liberty of conscience only make sense in the greater context of the divine imprint on each and every human being. In the news, timebound stories connect to broader issues of truth, meaning, morality, and justice. Headlines point to where our lives intersect with God's timeless work in the world. The challenges of our moment can only be placed and understood in light of the larger Story. We hope that in hearing us dissect these news events on BreakPoint, our place within God's larger story becomes more obvious. Christians believe that every moment is linked to eternity, each single frame an interrelated part of a bigger picture. By pointing out the connections between significant cultural moments and the larger story, we pray that God would empower His people to live out a Christian worldview in the time and place He has determined for them. After all, living a Christian worldview is about more than knowing a factoid or crafting the most clever response to an opponent of the faith. It's about seeing the world from God's point of view. When so much of life is captivated by the 24-hour news cycle, we are tempted to think of the world as a series of isolated events, or as Henry Ford put it, "one (darn) thing after another." Christians are tempted to reduce our cultural witness to a running and never-ending tally of wins and losses. God calls us to more than being tossed to and fro by every other headline. God has called us to a life of reconciliation in this time and this place (see 2 Corinthians 5). If you are in Christ, you have been called to this cultural moment. With God's help, the Colson Center and BreakPoint will be here to help you live out this calling with cultural clarity, Gospel confidence, and Christ's courage. If BreakPoint has been a helpful resource for you, please consider a gift of support today, Giving Tuesday. You can give at colsoncenter.org/givingtuesday21.