Breakpoint

A few years ago, a woman spotted her teenage son's laptop on the kitchen counter. She opened the lid and what she saw horrified her — a series of pornographic pictures. She clicked on an image and a sexually explicit video began playing. She checked her son's browser history which revealed this was not the first time her son had accessed pornography. This woman was shocked, but she should not have been. As Sean McDowell once told me, "The question is not if my kids will see pornography, but what will I do when it happens." In their new book titled Treading Boldly Through a Pornographic World, authors Daniel Weiss and Joshua Glaser note that today's parents are the first in history to bring up children in such a digitally connected, pornography-saturated world. It's not that we've ever had a world without sexual brokenness or pornography, but the access to it is unprecedented. Sexually explicit material is fully integrated into mainstream life, as they put it. And it's also become culturally accepted and is far worse, more violent, and more degrading than it was just a few years ago. A few years ago, I was on a panel with radio host Dennis Prager. I respect Dennis for so many reasons, but he didn't hold the same conviction as I did when it came to pornography. He mentioned growing up in a household where his dad had Playboy laying around. I had to tell him that Playboy of the 1950s and '60s is nothing like the Cosmopolitan magazines today, much less what's found on the internet and even on social media. Pornography is so prevalent that while parents should certainly do everything they can to protect their kids from these vile images, they should also accept the fact that sexual brokenness will confront their children's eyes — and their imaginations at some point. It's simply too widespread. The sexual brokenness we see front and center that is not considered pornography today was considered pornography just yesterday. Not to mention all the messaging that we get about the new norms of sexual behavior. It is too available. It's on every screen, including on the cell phones that so many of our children carry around in their book bags. If they don't have cell phones, their friends do. If they're not accessing it, it's likely that one of their friends will show it to them. Let's be clear about something. The point of the story is not that kids are looking for pornography. It's that pornography is actively looking for them. It's so pervasive that many children are first exposed to pornography at seven years of age. This exposure harms them in all kinds of ways. According to Weiss and Glaser, it perverts their understanding of sexuality, stunts their capacity to process emotions, and cripples their ability to form long-term relationships. Because they're so young, they think that what they see in pornographic images is normal. Parents must learn how to talk about the dangers of pornography with their sons and daughters before they see it, even though it's difficult. Parents must start by understanding and communicating God's plans and purposes for human sexuality to help their kids grasp what sexuality means as God intended, and to embrace the beauty and goodness of sexuality within the context of lifelong married love. Second, kids must understand just how easy it is to become addicted to porn. What starts as curiosity can become almost uncontrollable. If you've struggled with pornography yourself, say Weiss and Glaser, share it with your kids. It helps kids understand that our concerns about online sexual content are rooted in real personal experience, that we're not perfect. And that they don't have to pretend to be perfect either. Together we can help them navigate these very difficult waters. Third, set clear digital boundaries with your kids. There are all kinds of resources out there: internet filters, ad blockers, accountability software. Teach your kids what to do if they come across inappropriate material. Encourage them to come to you. Your goal is to guide them, to guard them. To help them grow in online responsibility. The ultimate goal is to help kids towards greater spiritual maturity — maturity that will help them resist temptation when they are no longer under your roof. When they don't have the same measures of accountability in place. Work on a plan for what to do if they stumble. If they stumble outside of your guidance, you want them to know that clear steps have to be taken. They won't have a magical ability to just wish away the attraction. Finally, if you discover that your child is addicted to illicit imagery right now, understand this is a long-term game. It's very difficult to break such a habit. Pornography literally reprograms the central nervous system. Parents should affirm their love for their child even though they will understandably be deeply upset and disappointed. Parents must talk with their kids to learn what led to this habit, how extensive the habit is, how long it's b.een going on, and what sort of openness the child has to deal with it. Weiss and Glaser report that many parents miss the fact that kids often pursue pornographic material to meet unmet needs; to heal wounds, to resolve shame, to feel connected, to ease anxiety, to alleviate stress. So, try to find out what's going on in your kids' lives that drive them to seek out pornography. Breaking this debilitating habit will take a long time. It involves developing new thought and behavior patterns. If you've ever overcome a very difficult addiction or a very difficult sin pattern, then you have a little bit of an idea of how difficult this can be — maybe even more. It's a process that should involve other people. The journey toward restoration, as Weiss and Glaser put, it is not a path away from pornography, it's a movement further into community, and I'd add to Christ Himself. We need to join our kids in this journey away from addiction. We must learn how to keep pornography from becoming a problem for our kids and how to help our kids if it has become a problem. Pick up a copy of Treading Boldly Through a Pornographic World and visit breakpoint.org for more information. This book is a guiding light for anyone, especially parents who wish to help the next generation thrive in this hyper-sexualized and predatory world.

Dr. Kathy Koch joined John Stonestreet for a special recording for the Wilberforce Weekend Online. Dr. Koch was a featured speaker at the Wilberforce Weekend in Fort Worth, TX, and joined John for an encore conversation for the online offering of the Wilberforce Weekend. You can hear the full conversation by registering for the Wilberforce Weekend Online at www.wilberforceweekend.org. Dr. Kathy Koch is the Founder and President of Celebrate Kids, Inc., based in Fort Worth, TX, and a cofounder of Ignite the Family, based in Alpharetta, GA. She has influenced thousands of parents, teachers, and children in 30 countries through keynote messages, seminars, chapels, and other events. She is proud to be represented by the Ambassador Speakers Bureau of Nashville, TN. She is a featured speaker for the Great Homeschool Conventions, on the faculty of Summit Ministries, and a frequent presenter for Care Net, Axis, and other organizations. She speaks regularly at schools, churches, and pregnancy resource centers.

In 416 BC, during the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, Athens decided to attack the neutral island of Melos. When the Melians protested they had done Athens no wrong, the Athenians replied, "The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must." The Melians were starved into surrender, their men were killed, and their women and children were sold into slavery. None of this was unusual in the ancient world. The strong, it was supposed, had every right to dominate the weak. Cruelty, rape, torture, and slaughter were ordinary means of enforcing power. Neither the gods nor the moral codes opposed dominations. Atheist historian Tom Holland, describes his feelings about the Greco-Roman world this way: "It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value." So what changed? As Holland notes, the difference was Christianity. Christians and Jews believed that all persons were made in the image of God. Thus, every person had intrinsic worth and dignity, no matter their race, ethnicity, gender, or strength. On this basis, oppression of the poor and weak was condemned. Neither might nor wealth made right. Christianity further emphasized the spiritual and moral equality of all people. Not only do we all share the same humanity, but we all suffer from the same problem (sin) and are in need of the same solution (salvation through Jesus). Because of these ideas, Christianity is the sole historical source of concepts now taken for granted: human dignity, human equality, and universal human rights. As not only Tom Holland but other prominent atheists such as Jürgen Habermas and Luc Ferry admit, these ideas are at the root of our modern concern for the poor and oppressed. And this is why it's accurate to call "wokeness" a Christian heresy. "Heresy" comes from the Greek verb hairein, which means to choose. The idea is, heresy is the result of choosing one thing that is true and then running with it until it distorts everything else. "Wokeness," a way of seeing the world built on critical theory, fastens onto the Christian idea that oppression is evil, but makes it the sole significant fact about humanity and society, while rejecting so much else that Christianity teaches — original sin, forgiveness, and salvation. It should not be difficult to see why various expressions of critical theory and "woke" rhetoric resonates with so many Christians. The appeal is rooted in legitimate biblical concerns about the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed, and the potential misuse of power. However, it fails on many other levels. First, the anthropology of critical theory misunderstands who we are by assuming that the only relevant fact about us is where we fit within the various categories of oppression. We are the group we belong to, which serves a social role as either oppressor or oppressed. As such, this theory rejects any universals that unite humanity, including the image of God. Second, the understanding of sin, or what's wrong with the human condition, is limited to oppression. In this view, oppressors are guilty and the oppressed are innocent. The universality of human guilt before God, that we all are broken and sinful, that we are all in need of forgiveness and redemption is replaced by a moral reckoning that is dependent on which group we belong to. Human identity, human nature, and human problems are all flattened onto a single spectrum of oppression. Given its failure to diagnose sin, it's not surprising that critical theories lack an adequate understanding of salvation. At best, a semblance of acceptance is offered to those who accept its worldview, but even then, the guilt of certain groups and the moral superiority of other groups is fixed and perpetual. This also means that forgiveness and reconciliation are effectively ruled out a priori. Even for the oppressed, there is no path for healing; no bearing one another's burdens; no easing the burden of pain by forgiving another. In the end, wokeness is built on a worldview without salvation and offers an eschatology with no real hope. Though the proclaimed goal is to end oppression, it's what the late sociologist Philip Rieff called a "deathwork," dedicated to tearing down things but unable to build, or offer, anything better. Advocates of critical race theory, for example, argue that although race is a cultural construct, racism is an inevitable and irredeemable trait of certain groups and society. They cannot offer a vision of the world in which this sin is defeated or redeemed, much less one in which the guilty are forgiven and restored. The best that can be hoped for is to replace one set of powers with another. Playing off of legitimate concerns about power and corruption, concerns first introduced to the world by a Christian vision of life and the world, critical theories push these ideas to the point of reframing the Gospel. The real problems with race and injustice in America need to be addressed. However, any expression of critical theory fails even as an analytical tool for Christians because it is built on a flawed and contrary worldview.

John and Maria start BreakPoint This Week by discussing a recent commentary related to forgiveness. Maria notes a special point in the article where John states that we are likely choosing to forget about forgiveness, creating a unique honor-shame culture. Then John and Maria visit briefly on a story they covered last week where the IRS sent a letter to a Christian group stating they didn't qualify for tax exempt status. Due to public backlash, the IRS granted the Christian group tax exempt status. Maria continues the line of conversation from the IRS to the Supreme court, who denied hearing an appeal by Baronnelle Stutzman who is facing financial ruin. Baronnelle has been bullied by Washington state and has an ominous road ahead due to the Supreme Court not hearing her case. John shares her story and why the church needs to come alongside her as she continues to faithfully follow the Lord. Maria then asks John to give clarity on the situation in Haiti, where the President of Haiti was killed and now the country faces political upheaval. To close, John and Maria visit on recent reports that public school enrollment has dropped significantly over the past year. This comes on the heals of debates to teach Critical Race Theory as an ultimate theory for the state of the world. - Story References - Why The Greatest Gift the Church Can Give Us Right Now Is Forgiveness Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal by Baronnelle Stutzman Haiti Hunts Down President's Assassins as Crisis Deepens 3% school enrollment drop is largest decline in over two decades | CRT Stokes Fire - Resources - Visions of Vocation: Common Grace for the Common Good Steve Garber | Book on Virtue Muscle Shoals Documentary | March, 2020

John and Maria start BreakPoint This Week by discussing a recent commentary related to forgiveness. Maria notes a special point in the article where John states that we are likely choosing to forget about forgiveness, creating a unique honor-shame culture. Then John and Maria visit briefly on a story they covered last week where the IRS sent a letter to a Christian group stating they didn't qualify for tax exempt status. Due to public backlash, the IRS granted the Christian group tax exempt status. Maria continues the line of conversation from the IRS to the Supreme court, who denied hearing an appeal by Baronnelle Stutzman who is facing financial ruin. Baronnelle has been bullied by Washington state and has an ominous road ahead due to the Supreme Court not hearing her case. John shares her story and why the church needs to come alongside her as she continues to faithfully follow the Lord. Maria then asks John to give clarity on the situation in Haiti, where the President of Haiti was killed and now the country faces political upheaval. To close, John and Maria visit on recent reports that public school enrollment has dropped significantly over the past year. This comes on the heals of debates to teach Critical Race Theory as an ultimate theory for the state of the world. - Story References - Why The Greatest Gift the Church Can Give Us Right Now Is Forgiveness Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal by Baronnelle Stutzman Haiti Hunts Down President's Assassins as Crisis Deepens 3% school enrollment drop is largest decline in over two decades | CRT Stokes Fire - Resources - Visions of Vocation: Common Grace for the Common Good Steve Garber | Book on Virtue Muscle Shoals Documentary | March, 2020

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 19 percent more Americans died in 2020 than in 2019. Adjusted for population age, that's the largest one-year increase in mortality since the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918. The CDC attributes approximately 375,000 American deaths in 2020 to COVID-19, but making that stat the headline of this story would be burying the lede. Unlike the Spanish flu, the COVID pandemic left young adults largely unscathed. Only about 3.5% of the pandemic's victims were in the 25-34 age bracket. Yet deaths in this age group are still on the rise. In fact, working-age adults are the only group whose age-adjusted mortality over the last few decades hasn't improved. Writing at Bloomberg, Justin Fox reports that while the rest of the population has experienced increased health and life expectancies, younger adults — who are historically among the healthiest citizens — are dying at about the same rate they did in 1953, a time when medicine and health care weren't nearly as advanced as today. Back in March, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a lengthy report which attempted to explain this data. The culprits identified for the "high and rising mortality among working-age adults" were "external causes" like drugs, alcohol, and suicide. Likewise the CDC has identified a surge in drug overdoses as the main problem, especially the popularity of fentanyl and similar highly potent synthetic opioids. In 2015, economists Ann Case and Angus Denton gave this collective of killers a name: "deaths of despair." Deaths of despair have been on the rise for years and are disproportionately concentrated among white, rural Americans without college degrees. More immediately, these have served as "pre-existing conditions" of COVID or, more accurately, "comorbidities." Though numbers are still trickling in, rates of "deaths of despair" worsened sharply in 2020, when lockdowns and social distancing were at their peak, according to the CDC. One lesson here is that because human beings are more than bodies, public health is more than controlling infectious diseases. Hope is as essential for our wellbeing as health care. If we hope to prevent young adults from dying too soon, we'll first have to help them answer the question: "What is there to live for?" In a modern world filled with infinite choice and distraction, but void of meaning, the answer to that question just isn't clear for many, particularly young adults. They've lost hope, and I'm not referring to a feeling. To borrow from Thomas Aquinas, an increasingly secular culture has removed any real conviction that it's even possible to "share in the goodness of God." Too many of our public policies not only disregard the fullness of who we are as human beings, they fail to take into account that our culture is so thin on hope. For example, the impacts of lockdowns, social distancing, and extended isolation cannot be measured in mere economic terms. So, too, any evaluation of the drugs that are approved and made widely available should, at the very least, take into account the rise in overdose deaths. We can no longer avoid uncomfortable questions about human value and pharmaceutical profits. Most importantly, the rates of deaths from despair should lead us to rethink what hope is and where it comes from. I cannot imagine anyone would actually say that stuff is more important than people, or that our phones mean more than our children, or that we are better off alone and autonomous than with others, and mutually responsible. Or that mindlessly consuming entertainment designed only to provoke or distract is the true definition of "the good life." Without argument, however, and through the persistent, perpetual habituation of our souls, many people have become convinced of this. The evidence is found not in what we say, but in the hopeless ways we live. The real culprit here is a worldview described by the prophet Isaiah centuries ago, one which urges us to spend money on that which is not bread and to work for what cannot satisfy. Today, we are urged to spend our resources and seek fulfilment in stuff, sex, state, and self. The countless Americans turning to anesthetics to numb their disappointment is proof that these things cannot satisfy. Who else can address this culture-wide pandemic of despair but the Church? Who else, if not us fellow beggars who have found the Bread of Life. In a society literally dying of despair, to "always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have to anyone who asks," is not a mere suggestion. It's a calling. It's a matter of life or death.

In various forms and in various expressions, the perpetual myth repeated in each chapter of the sexual revolution (as each new extreme becomes a norm in our culture) is this phrase: The kids will be fine. It all started with no-fault divorce. That first version of the kids will be fine went something like this: "Kids will be better off with happy parents that aren't married than with unhappy parents that stay married." Last week, my friend Katie Faust tweeted the following: "The safest place statistically on record for children is in the home of their married biological mother and father."She was responding to a tweet thread from a gentleman who experienced horrific abuse following the divorce of his parents. This week our What Would You Say? team addressed this question of whether a child is better off with parents who are unhappily married, or happily divorced. That language itself needs to be unpacked since the statistics are striking. Below is an edited transcript of Katy Faust speaking on children of divorce on the recent What Would You Say? video. In headlines about a celebrity divorce, or in conversations with friends in struggling marriages we often hear that it will be better for kids if their unhappy parents get a divorce. But is that really true? No. Here are three reasons why. Number one is that kids don't just "get over" divorce. We often talk about divorce like it's a cold. Bothersome, but the kids will get over it. Divorce affects children's bodies, minds, and hearts for a very long time. For many kids, divorce kicks off a lifetime of loss and transition. Instability is often a feature of a child's life after a divorce. One study found that nearly half of children with divorced parents had not seen their father in the past year. Number two: For kids, two homes are not better than one. According to one long-term study of children of parents who lived in two different homes, these children (on average) obtained less education, experienced more unemployment, were more likely to be divorced themselves, faced a greater occurrence of negative life events, and engaged in riskier behavior than their peers raised in intact homes. Researcher Elizabeth Marquardt discovered these kids were not just living in two different homes — nearly half developed two different personalities. Each home offered different versions of the truth, required keeping different secrets, and operated under two different sets of rules. Number three: If couples persevere, unhappy marriages often become happy marriages. In the past, marriage was considered a permanent union unless one party was deemed at fault because of something like adultery, abuse, or abandonment. Since the passage of no-fault divorce laws, spouses can divorce for any reason or no reason at all. Now the majority of divorces take place because parents are unhappy or have fallen out of love. These are often called irreconcilable differences. One study found that a third of unhappy couples with new babies divorced, but of the two-thirds who persisted, 93% reported happy marriages. A 2002 report found that two-thirds of unhappily married adults who chose to stick it out reported happier marriages five years later. What's more, unhappy couples who divorced were no happier on average than those who stayed together. Harry Benson, research director of The Marriage Foundation, noted that contrary to popular belief, staying in an unhappy marriage could be the best thing you ever do. In cases of abuse, safety must be a priority. And in cases of adultery, the marriage may be irreconcilable, but even if leaving an unsafe situation is the right thing to do, divorce still inflicts a heavy mental, emotional, and physical toll on children. There are scenarios in which the harm that divorce inflicts on children is justified, but adult happiness is not one of them. Our most recent What Would You Say? video featuring Katy Faust is entitled "Happily Divorced vs. Unhappily Married - Which is Better for Kids?" Watch the full video at whatwouldyousay.org.Or, go to YouTube and subscribe to the What Would You Say? channel. Please note, if you search for "what would you say" on YouTube, the first result will be a Dave Matthews video, and the second result will be our channel, What Would You Say? with a distinctive big blue question mark. You can subscribe right there.

John and Shane discuss important questions this week, ranging from how to discipline a follower of Christ while being evangelistic to teaching worldview to students who are Biblically Illiterate. John and Shane also give guidance to how schools can approach Critical Race Theory in secondary schools, is culture missing the point in celebrating someone exercising freedom instead of virtue, and how a Christian can affirm the image of God in a friend without affirming their friend's behavior.

On Friday, in an act of what can only be described as dereliction, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case of Arlene's Flowers, Inc vs. Washington. In refusing to hear this case, the Court has failed to bring clarity to a situation it ultimately created. Despite the utopian thinking of Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision, legalizing same-sex marriage has led to a crisis of religious liberty. Barronelle Stutzman is the definitive answer to the question, "how will my gay marriage affect you?" In 2014, a long-time customer (whom Stutzman considered to be a friend) asked Barronelle to create a floral arrangement for his same-sex wedding. When Stutzman declined due to her Christian belief about marriage, the client said he understood and asked for referrals to other florists who would be willing to do the job. She recommended three other floral designers, they embraced and said goodbye. When the attorney general of the State of Washington saw a post about the incident on social media, they brought charges against Barronelle. In 2015, a trial court found her guilty of violating Washington's anti-discrimination law, ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine and the ACLU's legal fees, and to no longer accept wedding business unless she agreed to serve gay weddings. Her appeal to the state Supreme Court drew so much interest that arguments were held in a local college auditorium. The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Stutzman, citing Kennedy's Obergefell language and even claiming that to not service a same-sex wedding is to "disrespect and subordinate" gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that floral arrangements weren't "speech" but instead "conduct," and rejected her free exercise claim based on the Employment Division vs. Smith. In other words, the Court found that even if the state had violated Barronelle's First Amendment right to free exercise, it had done so in a generally applicable way that serves a compelling interest of the government. Barronelle, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, when the Court found the state of Colorado guilty of animus toward the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips, in the very similar Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it vacated the decision by the Washington court, effectively asking it to re-examine Barronelle's case and look for the kind of religious animus condemned by Kennedy in the Masterpiece decision. Unsurprisingly, the Washington Supreme Court, not about to admit it had decided anything wrongly, ruled again against Barronelle. So ADF, on behalf of Barronelle, appealed again to the Supreme Court. By refusing to hear Barronelle's case, the Supreme Court has left her, after seven years of fighting for her rights of conscience, without justice. It has left her without a significant part of her business. It has left her weary but amazingly hopeful after a seven-year battle to save it. It has left her with the potential of financial ruin, and largely at the mercy of the ACLU. And, the Supreme Court has left America in the lurch, unsettled as to what definition of religious freedom it will recognize and protect. By ruling in favor of Catholic Social Services a few weeks ago, the Court made it even more clear that religious organizations will be protected. However, by refusing to take up Barronelle's case, the status of religious freedom for individuals outside of religious organizations to live and order their public lives according to their deeply held convictions, is decidedly not clear. Even if the Supreme Court is not clear, we all should be. First, LGBT advocates should be clear about whether or not this is what they are fighting for? Is the goal really to destroy people like Barronell Stutzman and Jack Phillips, neighbors who have served you and the community so well for so many years? Churches, Christian organizations, and Christians everywhere need to be clear too. Where will we stand? Will we make the sort of hard, life-altering choices as Barronelle, even if it costs us everything? And, will we choose to stand, in prayer and financial support, to those forced to pay a high cost for their Christian convictions? I'm no prophet, but I suspect Barronelle is among the first of many who will be forced to choose between their convictions and their livelihoods. The least that the rest of us can do is to stand with them, pray for them, support them, carry whatever burdens we can, and take our place alongside them, if and when the time comes.

The term cancel culture evokes images of screaming undergrads, D-platform speakers, fired employees, and demanding protesters. However, the cancel culture ethic doesn't simply exist "out there" in the larger culture; it has infiltrated our homes. Our dinner tables have become personal social media platforms. Increasingly, this doesn't merely take the form of political ideology, it is quite simply a fading ability to forgive. In a recent essay at Comment magazine, Pastor Timothy Keller articulated this current feature of our hyper-politicized atmosphere. Not only is there a race for victimhood status and an inability to find any common ground with people across ideological lines, and not only does this make school board meetings and Thanksgiving dinners more awkward (to say the least), but it has turned us into a society without forgiveness. For example, Keller points to the dramatic shift in tone on issues of race relations since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, when leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. emphasized forgiveness and reconciliation. This stands in stark contrast to the tone of the modern movement for racial justice that frequently erupts into destructive violence and open antipathy toward fellow Americans. Opinion pieces are released in major news outlets that increasingly urge black Americans to stop forgiving white Americans altogether. Think of how this advice contrasts with the behavior of the members of Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina a few years ago. Activists now argue that not only has there been a history of white racism, but that all white people are racist; that even whiteness itself is akin to a plague. Women's rights advocates have also soured on forgiveness. Keller cites an opinion piece in the New York Times, in which Danielle Berrin argues against forgiving perpetrators of sexual assault. One commenter distilled her message well: Forgiveness is overrated. In fact forgiveness is not only overrated, the argument goes, but it perpetuates further evils such as sexism, abuse, and oppression. Keller writes, "…[T]he emphasis on guilt and justice is ever more on the rise and the concept of forgiveness seems, especially to the younger generations, increasingly problematic." In these observations, Keller joins authors like Gregory Jones, Bradley Campbell, and Jason Manning to conclude that what we're witnessing is nothing less than the birth of a new honor-shame society. Increasingly it is victimhood status, not God's mercy or Christ's imputation that is seen as the source of our righteousness. As a result, our culture values fragility over strength, and embellishes a constant good-versus-evil conflict, even over the smallest of issues. From elections to Facebook posts to hygiene practices — almost everything takes on the emotional temperature of a religion. It's especially true with anything that is or can be related to politics. Absolution for moral guilt was once secured in church. But today our moral status and our identity hang on our credentials as victims. Being oppressed or mistreated brings moral absolution. And the oppressor is left without even the possibility of forgiveness or restoration. "It's no wonder," writes Keller, "that this culture quickly becomes littered with enormous numbers of broken and now irreparable relationships." It's as if there is a race to hold the most grudges and grievances, to be the people most wronged, and therefore the people with the greatest moral authority. But as Christians who have been forgiven much, we should be among the first and especially the quickest to forgive. Instead, too many of us have absorbed the very worst habits of cancel culture — withholding forgiveness ourselves, refusing to extend any dignity or respect to someone who is a political or ideological opponent, and writing others off completely for infractions of any kind. This is not the Christian way of doing life together. This is not the way of life and birth in Christianity that brought about the best of the modern world. Cultivating habits of forgiveness will not only reorient our priorities to the core truths of the Gospel, but it will also awaken and re-awaken us to the common good. As figures like Hannah Arendt, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Desmond Tutu have attested, forgiveness of the gravest of evils can end the otherwise perpetual cycle of grievance and revenge. When we let go of wrongs, both perceived and real, we acknowledge the reality of Divine justice. When we surrender these matters into God's hands, we demonstrate that He is the One who will "square all accounts" in the end, as Keller puts it. Even more, extending forgiveness tacitly acknowledges that we, too, are in need of forgiveness. The Psalmist put it this way: "If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness." A world without forgiveness is simply an awful prospect. The only way forward in our increasingly vindictive age is for Christians to offer this very good gift that we've received from God as a gift to the larger world. If we don't, there's simply no other source for it. And guilt and grievance will consume our culture — and our family gatherings.