Breakpoint

John and Shane field a listener response to a BreakPoint Shane authored last week. The BreakPoint discussed problematic points for Christians inside a new trend of casual sex in the Christian community. John and Shane go point-by-point to provide a strong Christian worldview foundation to the listener's concerns. Shane then presents a sobering topic from a listener who is looking for encouragement as her daughter is expressing gender dysphoria. John provides helpful resources for a growing community inside the church, and Shane closes their response in a time of prayer for the specific mother and daughter as well as those who are facing this challenging issue. To close, John invites Shane to revisit a piece on Christians and media consumption. A listener writes in to ask if there is a problem in the church when a pastor finds recreation in watching a Netflix series that celebrates infidelity and leads his church to abhor the practice. -- RESOURCES -- Alliance Defending Freedom Story From Mother Pulling Daughter Out of School Due to Transgender Ideologies Helena Kerschner - Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria at Q Ideas with Gabe Lyons

For the first time since the Gallup organization started to track the data, fewer than 50% of Americans now belong to a church, synagogue or mosque. Behind these numbers are, among other factors, the trendiness of not only leaving church, but announcing it on social media with a bit of shaming and blaming thrown in for good measure. And many are not only leaving a particular house of worship but joining a growing demographic known as the "nones," rejecting all religious affiliation. The Christian version of those who grew up in the church but have become "nones" often go by another label: "exvangelicals." Sometimes, these exodus narratives center around hurt committed by people inside the church. Other times, these narratives center on hurt that exvangelicals claim comes from the truth claims of the Christian faith. For example, many exvangelicals cite the Bible's teaching on sexuality as the primary reason for their exit. In reality, however, many of the folks in this camp have already rejected other cornerstones of orthodoxy, such as the authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, the necessity of Jesus' atonement, and the deity and exclusivity of Christ. Tragically, high profile figures who have for years publicly broadcast their deconstruction stories, now often have unravelling lives. Divorce, marital unfaithfulness, or newly professed homosexuality are disproportionately found (or at least revealed) in the wake of faith deconstruction. I share these details not to point fingers or to celebrate brokenness, but to surface the all important chicken-and-egg question for Christians committed to persevere in the faith. Namely, are those who leave church and lose their faith more susceptible to bad habits and decisions? Or does practicing bad habits and making bad decisions leave one more susceptible to losing one's faith? Biblically speaking, the answer is "both." In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul issues a dire warning. "If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall." Of course, every "leaving church" story is different. Sometimes, real harm has been done. Sometimes, there's been a failure of catechism and teaching. Sometimes doubt results from the impression that the Bible doesn't allow Christians to ask tough questions. Other times, however, bad behavior, bad habits, or even the neglect of good habits, can breed unbelief. Years ago, Pastor Tim Keller was widely criticized for reporting that whenever a student returned from college claiming no longer to be a Christian, he'd ask them who they were sleeping with. I've worked with enough students over the past two decades to know, it's a good question to ask. And not just to college-aged students. We may look at the trendy exvangelical stories and conclude that that could never happen to us. That would be foolish. To follow Jesus is to embrace the humility that we can surprise ourselves with our own sin, just as Peter was shocked to hear himself deny the Messiah mere hours after promising he never would. James challenged believers to "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you." This is not a quid pro quo. It is a promise. God has given His people habits of faith, such as prayer, fasting, study, loving our neighbor, fleeing from sin, and struggling against bad habits and complacency. He will never leave us. He is never distant. These exercises strengthen our faith to better see Him. Another essential that Christ has given us is His church. Imagine someone heckling your bride as she walks down the aisle toward you. How would you respond to that person? The Church is not above our critique, of course, but too many who embrace the habit of criticizing her soon find themselves as no longer part of her. Make no mistake, the Church is Christ's bride. She will outlast the world. As her members, we work toward her sanctification, but we should be incredibly wary about shouting her imperfections from the pews, especially to those outside the building. We heckle this Bride at our eternal peril.

Given the global pandemic, this seems like a particularly bad time to run a survey on church membership. Nevertheless, Gallup recently released a poll suggesting that the number of Americans who belong to a church, synagogue, or mosque has fallen below 50 percent for the first time since 1937, when the organization began tracking those numbers. In fact, more than half the respondents to this poll didn't merely give up their church membership. They gave up their religion, and now identify as "none," as in "no religious preference." Or, as my colleague Shane Morris put it in a recent podcast conversation with writer Samuel James, these folks haven't just left the room of denominational preference, they've left the house of collective faith. A number of separate but related cultural trends are at work. For example, an organization called The Witness, an online community of African-American Christians, recently launched the hashtag "#LeaveLoud." Through podcast episodes and online articles, The Witness encourages black Christians to not only leave "predominantly white or multiethnic" churches if they've been dishonored, but to be vocal about it inside and especially outside the church. Of course there are such things as abuse or crooked doctrine that warrant leaving a congregation. Specifically, plenty of our African-American brothers and sisters have been neglected or hurt by fellow Christians, either directly or indirectly. And, depending on the context, church leaders should be made aware of things that justify a departure. Still, much of what we are seeing is part of an I'm-leaving-church-and-please-watch-me-leave movement. Being noisy about joining the "exvangelicalism" movement is not only a popular thing to do, it's a way to be popular. In fact, after a few years of watching people "leave loud," I see at least a few troubling themes emerge. Almost without fail, a person leaving a church loud will cite bad or hurtful behavior by the people or leadership at the church. And of course no one wants to stick around where they are mistreated. However, in a culture that has widely embraced moralistic therapeutic deism, many think that being morally challenged, or anything that falls short of all-out affirmation, counts as "personal harm." This Gallup poll also points to interpersonal strife as a significant reason for leaving church. However, the number of people leaving a particular church over interpersonal strife is lower than the number leaving an entire faith tradition over interpersonal strife. According to the poll, the primary driver of plummeting church memberships is people renouncing religion altogether. To reuse the metaphor, people are leaving the house while blaming folks in one particular room. To publicly denounce a particular congregation, not to mention a particular denomination (not to mention an entire faith tradition), because of how people behaved is to misunderstand what Christianity is. It is first and foremost a commitment to Jesus Christ which, second, involves a set of claims about reality. Who Jesus is and what Christianity teaches must be evaluated on their own merit. Many churches have failed to prepare young people to do this. Considering these two factors makes me wonder if leavers who blame people in the Church for their own leaving are in reality just upset with God. So many "exvangelicals" and progressive Christians who begin by lamenting the bad behavior of fellow church-goers end up rejecting the Bible's moral claims about sexuality, or God's judgment of sin, or the lordship of Jesus. The more that the wider culture finds Christian teaching outdated and outrageous, the harder it is to distinguish between the various motivations of those who leave the church, and/or the faith. What is clear is that it is essential, at least for anyone who intends to persevere in the faith, to know what "the faith" is. For example, Scripture is clear that followers of Christ should "live peaceably with everyone, as far as it depends on you." Anyone who takes that teaching seriously, not to mention the many others that directly apply to our lives within the body of Christ, will find it difficult to "leave loud," or to justify leaving over silly disputes, or to neglect praying for those who have left.

John Stonestreet visits with Ryan T. Anderson on the image of God presented in the physical make up of male and female. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the Founding Editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey. He is the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment and Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. He is the co-author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, and the co-editor of A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism? Perspectives from "The Review of Politics."

Mary Slessor was born to a Scottish working-class family in 1848. At an early age Mary joined her parents in the Dundee mills, working half a day while going to school the other half. By age 14, Mary was working 12 hour shifts. Ever an avid reader, Mary kept a book propped up on her loom so she could read while working. Mary's mother, a devout Presbyterian with an interest in missions, saw that her children were raised in the Faith. When a local mission to the poor opened in Dundee, Mary volunteered to be a teacher. Her sense of humor and sympathy made her popular. At age 27, Mary learned of the death of famous missionary, David Livingstone. Inspired to join her church's mission in what is now southern Nigeria, Mary taught and worked in the dispensary. With her devotion to learn the local language, plus by cutting her hair and abandoning the traditional Victorian dress as impractical in the hot climate, Mary quickly set herself apart from the other missionaries. She began eating local foods as a cost-cutting measure. Finding the mission hierarchy frustrating, she welcomed opportunities to go upriver into inland areas. The need for workers in these regions with fewer missionaries was significant, so she asked to be stationed there. However, since male missionaries had been killed in those areas, her request as a single woman was turned down as too dangerous. After a medical furlough for malaria, Mary was stationed in a region where shamans dominated much of life. These men conducted trials in which guilt or innocence was determined by whether or not the accused died after taking poison. Slavery was also rampant among the powerful, and slaves were often sacrificed on their owner's death to be their servants in the afterlife. Women's rights were virtually nonexistent. Despite these challenges, Mary was able to integrate into the community and earn the trust of the local people. As a woman, she was not seen as the threat that male missionaries were. And, her ability to speak Efik and her embrace of local lifestyles in clothing, housing, and food endeared her to the native peoples. It was in Okoyong that Mary began the work for which she is now best known. The locals believed that when twins were born, one of them must be the child of a demon. The mothers were ostracized and, since there was no way to tell which was cursed, both children would be abandoned to death by starvation or wild animals. Like the earliest Christians who rescued victims of attempted infanticide by exposure, Mary began rescuing twins. She saved hundreds of children and, against the advice of her mission agency, adopted nine as her own. Like the earliest Christians whose example she emulated, the actions of Mary Slessor not only saved lives but played a major role in changing the local culture. Her understanding of the language, history, and customs, plus her standing in the community, enabled her to work as a mediator and give judgments in local tribal courts. When the British attempted to set up a court system in the area, Mary warned them it would be a disaster. So, the British consul appointed Mary as vice-consul in Okoyong, making her the first female magistrate in the British Empire. In this position, Mary continued to mediate disputes, while acting as liaison with the colonial government, continuing to care for children and continuing her work as a missionary. At age 66, Mary finally lost a long fight with malaria. She was given a state funeral, which was attended by many people who travelled from the tribal regions in order to honor her. She was nicknamed the "Queen of Okoyong." Mary Slessor's story is a wonderful part of the larger, ongoing Story of restoration, accomplished by Christ through His people within the time and place they are called. Slessor offers yet another example for Christ-followers that taking the Gospel to pagan cultures will typically involve protecting children. Our calling is no different.

John and Maria breakdown some trends in the news during BreakPoint This Week. They discuss how our response to the pandemic can cause us to despair. They discuss the importance of keeping our eyes on Christ and building our hope around a Christian worldview. Maria turns from a segment of looking to Christ to a segment looking at the challenges in our thinking about childrearing. John highlights two recent podcasts where the hosts share concern in birthrates and how that is impacting our culture. All of these topics follow a quick tour through BreakPoint commentaries from this week where Maria asks John for greater insight on what he's seeing going on in the culture. // Resources // Is Christian Cohabitation the New Norm? - BreakPoint - President Biden Called a Good Catholic - The Point - Biden Scraps the 'Protect Life' Rule: We Need Cultural Change, Not Political Games - BreakPoint - The Liberals Who Can't Quit Lockdown>> Millions Are Saying No to the Vaccines. What Are They Thinking? - The Atlantic - A Shrinking Society in Japan A Population Slowdown in the U.S. - The Daily Podcast - >

More and more, we're hearing about the promises of gene editing. It's a scientific technology that literally allows us to rewrite our DNA. Still in the experimental stage, with technologies like CRISPR, we've seen how the technology can be used wrongly. It can put humanity at risk. Many Christians are not aware of the biological challenges until it's too late. In this week's What Would You Say? video, my colleague Brooke McIntire walks through how Christians can think about gene editing. Here's Brooke McIntire. You're in a conversation and someone says, "Gene editing can help us wipe out disease and will improve life for everyone." What would you say? In recent years, talk of gene editing has become extremely popular. Gene editing technologies like CRISPR promise not only to eradicate disease and disability, but also to provide human enhancement and designer babies. But this powerful technology comes with a host of major ethical issues that need to be carefully considered and addressed. You may wonder what ethics has to do with gene editing – after all, doesn't eradicating disease and disability sound like a no brainer? It's true that we can and have used technology to alleviate suffering in the world, and that is a good thing. But sometimes our well-intentioned actions can have devastating unforeseen consequences. The next time someone says, "gene editing can help us wipe out disease and will improve life for everyone," here are 3 things to remember: Number 1: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. When we hear about the exciting advances in technology and genetics, it's easy to believe the promise that it will make our lives better or healthier. But, as countless stories in science fiction have taught us, simply pursuing innovation for innovation's sake can have dangerous consequences. That's why it's important to ask not only "can we" do something, but "should we" do something. As technology continues to advance, the question of "should we" will get more and more weighty. For example, a group of researchers at the Francis Crick Institute in London used CRISPR technology to edit 18 human embryos. But when they finished, they found that around half the embryos ended up with what they called "major unintended edits." These "major unintended edits" are more harmful than they sound. They can actually lead to birth defects or life-threatening medical problems like cancer. And, those issues could permanently enter the gene pool and affect future generations. Sometimes, our finite minds don't always foresee the potential dangers or ramifications of these innovations on human life. This is why it's dangerous to separate science from philosophy and ethics. These decisions shouldn't just be left up to scientists or experts who may be preoccupied with scientific advancement without a larger, ethical perspective and boundaries. Number 2: Treating human life as disposable doesn't make our society more humane. Humans aren't simply problems to be fixed or objects to be experimented on. Those 18 "edited" embryos are actual human lives that have been permanently altered in the pursuit of innovation and science. Many embryos will simply be discarded or destroyed because their usefulness has expired. But defining the value of a human life by their utility is not advancing society in a desirable or worthy direction. The sincere desire to eradicate genetic diseases is understandable, and the longing to heal reflects God's image in us. Ethically sound and medically safe treatments that don't dehumanize other human beings should be pursued. But we must proceed with an ethical framework, and an awareness of the human temptation to "become like God" with our own ideas about what is good and evil. Which leads to our third point. Number 3: Gene editing can't deliver on its promise of control. In the ethics of biotechnology, there's a fine line between healing and enhancement. Healing is fixing something that's broken. Enhancement is trying to improve something that isn't broken. It can be tempting to want to just "upgrade" healthy people or give our children a leg up in the world through various biotechnical enhancements. But this desire to "enhance" humanity misinterprets what it means to be human and exposes the urge to have complete control over our lives. We like to think that we have everything under control, that we can protect ourselves from any kind of pain, and decide what is moral on our own. But technology and human "enhancement" can't deliver on its promise to meet those deep desires for control. As we discussed earlier, this search for control often descends into a chaos of unintended consequences. As long as we keep looking to technology to solve our need for control or security or hope, we'll find ourselves disappointed. What we're missing can't be provided by technology. In reality, our craving for purpose, security, and the freedom to create and invent without hurting others is best met when we love our Creator, and love our neighbor more than we love ourselves. So the next time you're talking about technology and someone says "gene editing will help us wipe out disease and help create better lives for all," remember these 3 things: Number 1: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Number 2: Treating human life as disposable doesn't make our society more humane. Number 3: Gene editing can't deliver on its promise of control. For What Would You Say, I'm Brooke McIntire That was my colleague Brooke McIntire with this week's What Would You Say? video. Each week, a new video on our What Would You Say? series, tackles a question of cultural significance, answering it in a way that you can understand and repeat and use in your conversation with others. To make sure you don't miss a single What Would You Say? video, go to www.whatwouldyousay.org.

The idea of a politically neutral Supreme Court is one of our nation's persistent and appealing myths. The Court's job, at least according to our founding documents, is to interpret existing legislation and arbitrate disputes about that legislation. In practice, especially over the past several decades, the Court hasn't always stayed in that lane. In a crucial chapter in his important book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Carl Trueman shatters the notion of political neutrality within the Court, as well as the notion that the Court is impervious to cultural pressure. For example, in the landmark 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, which struck down abortion restrictions, the court famously offered this incredibly consequential line: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." The justices went on to say that for the Court to define those concepts (i.e. to define reality) would be for the Court to deny freedom itself. Though this sort of thinking is largely taken for granted today, it would have been utterly unrecognizable to America's founders, not to mention much of the world throughout all of human history. As Trueman points out in the book, this script was first espoused by Romantic-era philosophers like Jean Jacques-Rousseau. Rousseau suggested that true reality is found not in something bigger-than or outside-of ourselves, but merely in what we feel. This radical notion is, of course, entirely incompatible with the idea of a Creator who had a purposeful design for what He made. Yet, when the Court issued their opinion in Planned Parenthood V. Casey, the idea of self-determining meaning, identity and reality itself had so deeply seeped into our collective imaginations that the supposedly neutral U.S. Supreme Court took it for granted. Even more, the Court appealed to the centrality of precedent in its reasoning. Roe V. Wade, after all, had already been decided, said the justices, as if to ignore other landmark cases in which precedent was rightly overturned. In 1954, the Court overturned the awful "separate-but-equal" Plessy vs. Ferguson decision from 1896 that legalized racial segregation. Precedent should be respected, of course, but an appeal to precedent is not an argument. Wrong decisions that do not align with reality should be overturned. On the other hand, Trueman points to the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas. This decision overturned precedent set in 1986. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia specifically pointed to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, noting how the Court claimed precedent should be respected above reason. Scalia's concern is instructive for all of us today. The Court has a history of showing itself susceptible to cultural tastes. Justice transcends culture. It is not best served when based on the latest social fads. This history, especially in light of the major and more contemporary shifts in cultural tastes about selfhood and sexuality, reveal how vulnerable the Court is to cultural fashions. The 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which effectively struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, and the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which imposed same-sex "marriage" on the nation, were clearly driven more by cultural winds than some "long arch of the universe that bends toward justice." The only real way forward is by finding an anchor for meaning, justice, purpose and dignity. In just a few weeks, at the Wilberforce Weekend in Fort Worth, Texas, we will spend a weekend looking at the only notion that's ever been big enough to ground any of these eternal concepts: the Image of God. This audacious idea is both crucial within a Christian worldview and central for our cultural witness. And the incredible lineup of speakers and thinkers includes Dr. Carl Trueman, author of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. Get your tickets at wilberforceweekend.org.

John and Shane field a question on adoption. A listener wrote in to ask if adoption to a homosexual couple is better than a child being parentless. They then work through a question on if a Christian should marry if the marriage looks to be childless. John and Shane close the question and answer time looking at immigration. A listener asks for a worldview perspective on a topic that has become strongly politicized.

John and Shane field a question on adoption. A listener wrote in to ask if adoption to a homosexual couple is better than a child being parentless. They then work through a question on if a Christian should marry if the marriage looks to be childless. John and Shane close the question and answer time looking at immigration. A listener asks for a worldview perspective on a topic that has become strongly politicized.