Breakpoint

John and Maria discuss a perceived rise recently in acts of desperation and feelings of despair. There are growing reports of altercations at sporting events and in public settings pointing to a failing sense of trust in institutions. Maria looks to another trend in media where people are questioning the origin of the Coronavirus. John then highlights the challenge the public is having in trusting those who are in positions of authority. Before these two important topics, Maria and John discuss the impact Wilberforce weekend made on them, specifically the importance of understanding the image of God, a central theme throughout the entire presentation of BreakPoint This Week.

Recently, New York Times opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig broke the internet for a bombshell confession that, wait for it, she likes being a mom. Her piece, "I Became a Mother at 25, and I'm Not Sorry I Didn't Wait" was a beautifully written essay about how motherhood grew and changed her. Nothing she said was controversial… unless you're on Twitter, of course. Responses on social media were swift and angry, and ranged from strange to cruel to violent. Many missed, given their expressed pro-choice commitments, the irony of being angry at a choice to have kids. Of course, it's simply no longer accurate for this movement to call itself "pro-choice" anymore. Modern feminism is definitively pro-abortion with extremes that have no interest in women making their own choices. There's only one particular choice that is always acceptable. The choice to have children is the one that must be justified and defended. The choice to prevent or kill a child is the one taken for granted. In an even greater twist of irony, one of the most powerful and exclusive aspects of womanhood, the ability to bear children, is seen to interfere with being a woman. In fact, "feminism" is certainly the wrong term for a movement that demands that women fight the thing that only a woman's body can do. And, it is the wrong term for a view that promises equality for women only if they promise to act more like men. In so many ways, this latest iteration of feminism is anti-feminism. The backlash to Bruenig's piece also reveals how children are viewed in so much of our world. Bruenig's joy in motherhood is wonderful, but it isn't unique or rare. Many parents would say something similar, in fact. Still, children are treated as an obstacle to personal happiness—too expensive, too much work, bad for the environment, irresponsible. Simply put, reproductive technologies like birth control, assisted reproduction, and abortion have changed our reproductive ideas. Specifically, we now have the illusion that the choice is ours, and we are in control primarily of our own happiness. Though certainly not every parent prior to the twentieth century felt ready or excited for a pregnancy, there was more to the equation than: "Will this make me happy?" Children are ends in and of themselves, not means. Our happiness is not, ultimately, what children are for. They are made in the image of God, made by God for the good and care of the world, made for the time and place in which they are conceived, made to love, live for, and to glorify God. Every parent knows that children bring intense joy, and can be the source of intense pain (not to mention anxiety). This makes marriage a gift from God as the context for children. Marriage and children go together. When God blesses a marriage with children, He makes a choice that isn't really ours to make. Relinquishing our cultural grip on control, and the supposed need to always "explore all of our options," is a common grace of parenthood. A.W. Tozer tells a story about two fields: one uncultivated and one that's put to the plow: The fallow field is smug, contented, protected from the shock of the plow. But it is paying a terrible price for its tranquility; never does it feel the motions of mounting life… The cultivated field has yielded itself to the adventure of living… it has been upset, turned over, bruised and broken. But its rewards come hard upon its labors. Nature's wonders follow the plow. Though we don't have children in the self interest of our own joy, God in His kindness brings incredible joy through parenthood. It's a joy only accomplished by man and woman together, unrivaled in any other human experience. That's grace on grace.

A Gallup poll released earlier this month documented a massive 20-year drop in church attendance in America. So far, there have been two responses to it. One group mourns the decline of organized religion because religion is good for society, whether or not the religion is true. For example, Jewish commentator Matthew Yglesias wrote on Twitter, "[I] think I'm becoming a Straussian/Putnamist who instrumentally wants to get everyone to go to church." (He was referring to two socio-political theorists who emphasized the value of Christianity as a social institution.) As Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy noted in a tweet, churches have always been crucial to the project of self-government, teaching people to love their neighbors, and training them in the qualities "needed for wider society" such as "compromise, sacrifice, grace, mercy, patience, [and] humility." Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins has, in his words, "mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity" since, he warned his fellow unbelievers, "it might be a bulwark against something worse." Others, especially many believers, have a different reaction to record-low church attendance. They see this as not as the demise of true faith, but of "cultural Christianity." And, they add, good riddance to it. The reasoning goes like this: False believers who went to church because it was the social thing to do are now leaving since faith is no longer advantageous. True believers remain, and are now easier to distinguish within the wider culture. Among this school of thought are well-known evangelical pastors and leaders. As one tweeted: "Cultural Christianity is worse than no Christianity at all … Let nominal religion fall. Let the gospel rise." Another wrote: "If cultural Christianity means identifying as a Christian without fruit or praxis then secularism may be God wiping this malaise away." Still another declared: "Cultural Christianity is dying. Either you are a Christian or not. No faking it anymore." So, which view is right? Is the exodus of worshipers from pews a bad sign of our thinning social fabric? Or is it a good sign that the dross is being skimmed, revealing a smaller but purer Church? The choice is a false one. While Christianity is certainly more than a set of theological beliefs and the custom of sincere worship practices, it can never be less. So, just getting people back in church is not merely an "instrumental" good. This, to quote C. S. Lewis' observation in The Screwtape Letters, treats Christianity as a means, rather than an end: "Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist's shop." It is the devil's goal, to get people to embrace Christianity "not because it's true, but for some other reason." Christianity does show itself to the world, as the love of Christ reflects outwardly through His people. True Christianity will change how people think, behave, and relate to each other. As a result, Christianity often reforms a society, rescuing the oppressed, establishing justice, innovating goodness and beauty, and building cultural and political institutions. These good things result because Christianity is true, and because people really believe and live out of a framework of creation, incarnation, forgiveness, restoration, and resurrection. When the good things Christianity brings to the world decline, it reveals far more about the state of the church than the state of the world. So, the news that most Americans no longer attend church regularly is not good news for the church or for the world, and there will be huge cultural consequences for generations to come. The only way forward is, as ever, for Christ's followers to treat the faith as if it is true, and more than a means of self-improvement or social reform.

John and Shane field questions ranging from how an adult can love her family that is challenging her decision not to vaccinate. The adult's brothers and sisters are saying she doesn't love her parents well because of her decision. John and Shane discuss the ongoing false dichotomies our culture creates. John then responds to concern from parents regarding their adult son who is currently living with his girlfriend. The girlfriend isn't a follower of Jesus and said she wants to "test drive" living together before entering marriage. John and Shane provide encouragement for the parents as they navigate challenging waters. To close Shane asks John for some grade school Sunday school resources on behalf of a budding worldview teacher. John gives a pathway for the teacher to provide a good base of worldview training for the students.

Many of us recognize how important religious freedom is in the world, but some think advocating for religious liberty compromises our Christian witness. We're excited to partner with our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom in a six part series on religious liberty. It's part of our What Would You Say? video project. Here's the audio from the most recent video that was released just this morning. You're in a conversation and someone says, "Standing up for religious liberty is bad for Christian witness. After all, aren't Christians supposed to turn the other cheek?" What would you say? Sometimes people think that Christians who advocate for religious liberty do so at the cost of their Christian witness. They assume that defending religious freedom is motivated by fear, and distracts from the gospel. Since Christians are supposed to be fearless and self-sacrificial, doesn't defending religious liberty compromise our Christian witness? No, and here are three reasons why. Number one, religious freedom is not a social construct. It reflects what is true about us as humans. Religious liberty isn't an invention of America's Founding Fathers. It's a pre-political God-given right. All people have the right given by God to peaceably live according to our convictions without fear of unjust punishment and restrictions from kings, presidents and city councils. To be sure, governments don't always recognize religious freedom, but their failure to do so only highlights that religious liberty is a natural right given by God, not a privilege given to the people by a benevolent ruler. This is part of what it means to be made in God's image and to have the law of God written on our hearts. We know intrinsically that to be free to worship God according to our own convictions, our neighbors need to be allowed to do the same. Even if we think they're wrong. Standing up for religious liberty is part of our Christian witness. Religious freedom is rooted in the truth about who we are as image bearers. Telling the truth about how we were made will never get in the way of the Gospel. Number two, religious freedom is an ancient and central part of Christian teaching, from the Apostle Paul to the Catholic catechism to the Westminster Confession, Christianity has long taught that everyone should be free to worship and share their beliefs. In fact, religious freedom shows up in the earliest teachings of the Christian church. A third century church father wrote, "It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion." The early fourth-century edict of Milan, issued by Christian Emperor Constantine, opened the door to statewide religious freedom by ensuring that the government could no longer demand religious conformity. These early Christian teachings are based in the words of Christ Himself, who insisted that all His followers must choose Him freely, from the bottom of their hearts. Sometimes Christian communities have failed to respect religious freedom, but that does not change the reality that religious freedom is interwoven with the basic teachings of the church. These early Christians understood that they had a sacred responsibility to uphold their neighbors' religious freedom, and that responsibility carries over to us today. Number three, standing up for religious liberty is a way to love our neighbor. Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor. If Christians truly love our neighbors, we should work to create the best society we can, where the government honors God-given rights and respects the God-ordained dignity of every person. Study after study has shown a direct correlation between societies that are healthy, prosperous and respect human rights, and societies that respect religious freedom. In 2018, Pew Research Center found that the nations with the most religious freedom also tend to protect free speech and freedom of conscience. Nations that restrict religious freedom like Iran and Chinarestrict other basic rights as well. Religious freedom leads to greater prosperity, too. A study found that in the U.S. alone, religious individuals and organizations contribute more than $1.2 trillion dollars to the economy. Economist Arthur Brooks found that religious people who practice their faith, that is people who say that their faith is a significant part of their lives, are 25% more likely to donate to charity than secularists or people who rarely attend church. And they are 23% more likely to volunteer their time serving others. Standing up for religious freedom is about upholding the common good according to God's word. It is quite simply a way for us to love our neighbor as Christ commanded us. So the next time someone says that standing up for religious liberty is bad for our Christian witness, remember these three things: Number one, religious freedom is not a social construct. It reflects what is true about us as humans. Number two, religious freedom is an ancient and central part of Christian teaching. Number three, standing up for religious liberty is a way to love our neighbor. Our What Would You Say? team continues to put out incredible content answering some of the most critical questions of our cultural moment from a Christian worldview. What you just read was part of a partnership with our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom. To watch the whole video, and to share it, visit YouTube's What Would You Say? Colson Center video channel.

TikTok is a social media platform created in China, best known for dance videos. Its parent company, in fact, is called ByteDance. Still, like so much of social media, TikTok has grown far beyond what its creators intended or thought possible. For example, TikTok has become a home for Christian evangelism and discipleship. That's somewhat ironic, given China's intensifying war against Christianity and somewhat unexpected, given the lack of clarity about how much control Beijing asserts over the platform. Still, according to the "influencer marketing firm" Traackr, "Christian TikTok . . . drove more than 169 million engagements in 2020." About 1,800 Christian "influencers'' are active on the platform, Traackr estimates, and that number is growing. Christian TikTok is especially big in Mexico and Latin America, reports Vice, where millions of viewers have made the platform "the go-to place for a religious dose." Dose, by the way, is not a bad word for what TikTok offers. With few exceptions, videos on the platform cannot exceed 60 seconds. On average, that means Christian influencers have only about 150 words to give viewers "content, intimate prayers, and empathetic counseling." That's not a criticism of those who wish to use TikTok and other social media platforms like it to spread the Good News, but it should be a warning. Whether influencers realize it or not, there's a long and storied history of Christians, especially evangelicals, using new technologies to preach the Gospel and advance the Christian faith. The most obvious example is the printing press. The first book ever published with movable type was the Bible in 1455. By 1500, an estimated 8 million books had been printed in Europe, most of which were religious texts. Throughout the Reformation, which began less than 70 years after the invention of movable type, new communications technologies allowed reformers to make an "end run" around ecclesiastical authorities and directly appeal to the growing and increasingly literate middle class. Two hundred years later, the explosion of newspapers played a central role in spreading reports of conversions during what came to be called "The Great Awakening." These reports not only tracked the travel of evangelist George Whitefield and the scope of the revival, they created interest and anticipation about where it might go next. And, of course, there are numerous twentieth century examples, from Charles Fuller to Billy Graham to Jerry Falwell, involving radio, television, satellite technology, and the internet. The fall of communism and the rise of televangelists can both be traced to the use of communication technology by evangelicals to spread the Gospel message. So, the use of a new platform like TikTok is right in line with a story that goes way back in church history. Yet, the same history reveals the limitations of certain technologies, especially in the areas of discipleship and catechesis. After all, as Marshall McLuhan taught us, the medium is the message. The message is not just the what, it's the how. And, the fullness of "abundant life in Christ" can't really be contained in a tweet. For example, social scientists use the term "parasocial relationship" to describe the illusion of friendship and intimacy that develops between viewers and personalities on social media or television. It's an illusion because reciprocity is impossible in these mediums. That's not to say anything insincere or sinister is necessarily going on (although it may be), only that virtual connections are not substitutes for friends and mentors. Jesus not only taught His disciples, He shared life with them: meals, hardships, joys, conflict, sorrows, jealousy, etc. His command to them to "love one another as I have loved you" is the ultimate call to reciprocity. Reciprocity required physical presence, something impossible in a parasocial relationship. The key lesson here is to allow new technologies to do what they can do, but not expect them to do what they cannot do. The internet can disperse sermons and teaching materials like no other platform the world has ever seen. It cannot, as we've learned through COVID, be the kind of gathering place required for church. TikTok is great for challenging people with truth. It isn't sufficient for the Christian tasks of fully giving the reason for the hope we have, or loving our neighbors as ourself, or bearing one another's burdens, or mourning with those who mourn, or becoming more like Christ. The really hard work of making disciples must be done, as they say online, "IRL," or in real life.

A Christian worldview offers dignity to women that's not found in any other worldview in human history. Author Rebecca McLaughlin spoke about this at Wilberforce Weekend and shared these thoughts at a special Strong Women podcast episode recorded at the conference. You can listen here. Here is an excerpt from Rebecca's talk: Sometimes marriage and motherhood are celebrated at the expense of all other things God calls women to do. Some say a woman's highest calling is to be a wife and a mother. But a woman's highest calling is really to follow Jesus. Some are called to do that as wives. Some are called to follow Him as a wife and mother, and some are called to follow Him as single people. The Bible gives us an elevated view of both modes. We Christians have tended to downplay or denigrate singleness in order to elevate marriage. But the negative contrast to marriage isn't singleness. It's having multiple partners in non-monogamous sexual relationships. An important piece of the puzzle, therefore, is actually those women who are called to follow Jesus as singles. I have always been a little surprised that I got married. Part of me feels single on the inside. I love my husband. It's just that the Lord could have pulled me in a different direction. The relational aspect is as true and important for men as it is for women. Part of how we are made in God's image and how we roll out His kingdom is in relating to each other in ways that flow out of the kind of love Jesus has for us. It's in relationships in which we recognize that the other person is made in God's image, and someone for whom Jesus died. How we relate to other people is so important. The creative piece applies in terms of creating new humans, which men and women do together. It applies in terms of all the other spheres in which we use our skills, gifts, experience, and hard work. To listen to the rest of Rebecca McLaughlin's talk on the Strong Women podcast, download the episode on your favorite podcast app. Rebecca's full talk at Wilberforce Weekend will be available as part of our online Wilberforce Weekend offering (included are all the video sessions plus some special online-only sessions). The online platform is available for only $49. To purchase it, please visit wilberforceweekend.org/online.

John and Maria discuss a recent retort by Harvard's Cornell West to Howard University's decision to dissolve their classics department. They also discuss how the federal government's actions to expand unemployment benefits is playing out in the marketplace. To close the first segment, Maria asks John to comment further on a recent action by Sweden to remove puberty blocking medications from the approved treatment of gender dysphoria. John and Maria then discuss the role of women in ministry, an issue that became a hot topic recently after Saddleback Church welcomed a few women to their staff as pastors. Reactions from within the Southern Baptist Convention have many wondering about the way culture shapes our understanding of Scripture. John provides clarity in presenting a Christian worldview response that reflects God's communicated design for the role of pastor in the church. John then speaks to a recent decision by the Supreme Court to hear a case involving abortion laws and state's rights, offering a picture of the role of government and the responsibility of Christians in understanding the purpose and design of government. To close, John responds to a recent Christianity Today article that challenged where religious freedom protections are found. John and Maria share critique on the article, calling listeners to understand the Christian view of freedom.

In a recent article in Christianity Today, Judd Birdsall of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University analyzed the differences between how the Biden Administration has handled religious liberty concerns so far, and how his predecessor did. The article provides a critical lesson in how religious freedom is so often misunderstood, both in terms of the relationship between church and state and in terms of conscience rights across the board. First, there's the seriousness of the issue. Birdsall, in arguing that the State Department under President Trump had exaggerated claims of global religious oppression, described the different ways that the data can be measured and reported. This seems a strange statement to make. As a friend said to me in response to the article, "Whether it's 80% of the world's population or it's 56 nations that are in trouble, it is still a huge problem." Birdsall also took issue with tone and tenor difference between Trump officials and Biden officials, claiming that the previous administration was too boastful about its commitment to religious liberty. Instead, wrote Birdsall, America should be known for "not only a higher level of respect for religious freedom but also more honesty about shortcomings and actively addressing them." There's nothing in this statement I'd disagree with. But the answer doesn't hinge solely on humility without international action. Nor humility without acknowledging national shortcomings when it comes to restricting the religious freedoms of our own citizens. In the wake of the nationalism, totalitarianism, and religious-based oppression of the last several decades, we should acknowledge and celebrate the fact that the U.S. government finally put the first freedom at the forefront of its international relationships. In contrast,the Biden administration so far has followed the Obama administration's second-term tack in placing LGBTQ and abortion access concerns front and center in international dealings. A more humble government would stop targeting and restricting the conscience rights of private business owners like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman, or religious institutions like Christian colleges and orders of nuns. Birdsall accurately traces the history of these two competing views of religious liberty. The first he calls "The First Freedom" view, based on the place of religious freedom within the Bill of Rights. The other he calls "the Article 18" view, based on the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights definition of religious freedom. In the former view, religious freedom is the first freedom. It's the basis for many other freedoms essential for human and social flourishing. In the latter view, spiritual things are protected as a matter of personal choice, and it might be necessary to defer religious freedom to other human rights. Birdsall admits that the Biden administration holds an "Article 18" view of freedom, seeing religious liberty as something to be worked out in light of other freedoms, especially sexual freedom. That view is opposed right in the very first issue of Christianity Today in an article written by its founding editor, Carl Henry. Henry pondered the fragile basis for freedom in the West, arguing that champions of liberty far too often argued for it on a secular, individualistic basis. For Henry, this was woefully insufficient. The only hope for maintaining liberty, he thought, was for us to reorient ourselves to "the proper foundations of freedom." Religious liberty is properly understood as the first freedom, not as a mere side effect of other freeedoms. It guarantees other proper rights of citizens, religious or not, because it is based upon a particular vision of the kind of creatures we citizens are. In particular, that we do not belong—either in mind or body—to the state or to a particular interest group. We belong, in our consciences, to God. Any other basis of freedom subjects all freedoms to death by a thousand qualifications. To borrow from St. Anselm, there is an ontological primacy to religious freedom because itrelativizes the consistent but vain attempts of the state to claim preeminence. Of course it's true that God really does reign above all earthly powers, but you don't even have to believe that to know that without robust protections for religious freedom, all of our other rights will have no higher court of appeal than whomever currently holds the keys of power.

The road to hell, paved with good intentions, leads to some unpleasant travelling companions. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is BreakPoint. According to a recent article in World magazine, several Australian states have initiated or expanded the practice of euthanasia "down under." Similar measures were expanded across the Tasman by New Zealand last year, and across the globe in Spain, but failed in Portugal. Canada's death laws are being expanded through appeals to allow the mentally ill to die, while Holland and Belgium are still racing to see how far this road actually goes. Here at home, ten U.S. states have "death with dignity" laws. Every one of these laws advances by an appeal to compassion. It is merciful, we are told, to allow the ill to end their pain in death. Denying death to those who suffer robs human beings of their innate dignity and our future of "a happier world." Death can be, the rhetoric goes, a gift of love. Couched in explicitly moral terms, euthanasia is offered as the only ethical choice, opposite of heartlessness and cruelty. The word games played in the euthanasia debate would be impressive if they weren't so evil. Words such as "illness," "pain," "compassion," "mercy," and "dignity," are moving targets. It's the same game played by some of the worst villains in history. The movie Ich Klage An (or "I Accuse" in English) was released in German in 1941. In the film, the accused is a society and legal system that refuses to let a young woman die. Hanna Heyt, who suffers greatly from MS, wishes to end her pain. Her doctor refuses but her scientist husband complies. He's brought to trial for murder, only to level his own accusation against society for its heartlessness in the face of needless agony. With a few stylistic edits and updated production, one could easily imagine this compassionate appeal for "death with dignity" hitting a theater or streaming service today. It's all there: a fresh young face full of promise shackled by an incurable disease, making an earnest plea for a merciful end to her suffering. A husband's compassionate struggle to aid his loved one in getting what she wants, offering wise and carefully nuanced counsel to the resisting authorities. The anguished husband's accusation hits not just the judges, but an entire culture's supposedly cold heart. Ich Klage An was produced at the behest of the infamous Joseph Goebbels and his Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, with the goal of selling his new euthanasia program for the chronically ill and disabled. It worked. The movie was so compelling, the Allies banned it in 1945 for its role in enabling the Holocaust. Our idea of Nazi propaganda is probably more the goose-stepping hyenas in The Lion King but, as one commentator put it: … Ich Klage An comes across as a well-made, balanced melodrama. Unlike other propaganda films made during the time, there is little Nazi imagery or rhetoric. Yet dig a little deeper, it soon becomes apparent just how slyly and insidiously it pushes active euthanasia. The film and regime's same utilitarian view of human dignity advances so-called "death with dignity" laws in our age. And, like the German extermination initiatives, these laws expand every time they are tried. The debate begins with those near death, and quickly expands to those who are terminal, then to those with incurable disease, then to those with permanent conditions, then to the disabled, and finally to the depressed and mentally ill. First, consent is required. Then, it is implied. Finally, it is unnecessary. Those who advance euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide laws should have to demonstrate how their arguments differ from Nazi propaganda. If they don't, it's time to ask hard questions about this movement expanding so quickly around the world.