Breakpoint

John Stonestreet visits with Monique Duson about the image of God and how it is challenged inside critical race theory. Monique spent 2 decades advocating for Critical Race Theory (CRT), but through a series of events began to see the contradictions of CRT with the historic Christian worldview. She is now convinced that CRT is not the best way to achieve racial unity and actively speaks out against the use of CRT within the church. Monique's vision is to promote a vision for racial healing based on the historic Christian worldview. We invite you to watch John's discussion with Monique as they talk about the Image of God, the theme of the 2021 Wilberforce Weekend. Monique has a special perspective to share and we are excited to have him in our lineup for the conference. www.wilberfoceweekend.org

On April 19th, the Biden administration filed an appeal in a case that could force "religious doctors and hospitals to perform potentially harmful gender-transition procedures against their conscience and professional medical judgment." The case involves an Obama administration rule interpreting the Affordable Care Act. The rule was issued in 2016, and prohibits insurance companies and health-care providers from discriminating against people on the basis of sex. The rule anticipated that discrimination on the basis of sex would soon legally include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Biden administration has repeatedly pointed to the 2020 Supreme Court decision in the Bostock case, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, as now legally requiring this new way of seeing categories of sex. If this new way of reading the rule stands, insurance companies and providers "may not deny access to medically necessary medications, surgeries, and other transition-related treatments for transgender people if similar services—a hysterectomy, for example—would be covered for non-transgender people." This would, of course, redefine the concept of "medically necessary," ignoring the obvious difference between removing perfectly healthy organs and removing organs riddled with cancer. Also, the rule contains no conscience protections for doctors or hospitals. Therefore, Catholic hospitals, which do not perform hysterectomies except to preserve the life or physical health of a woman, would be forced to violate Catholic teaching. Various legal challenges to the rule by faith-based groups, all of whom claim that the regulation violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, have been unsuccessful. Courts did, however, block Trump administration attempts to eliminate the mandate. So, the litigation over the rule continues. In January, a federal district court in North Dakota ruled in favor of the Sisters of Mercy, a group of nuns who believe "that every man and woman" including transgender individuals, "is created in the image and likeness of God, and that they reflect God's image in unique—and uniquely dignified—ways." They also believe that "performing gender-transition, abortion, and sterilization services . . . [violates] their religious beliefs regarding human sexuality and procreation," and object to "providing insurance coverage for abortions, sterilizations, and gender transitions." If this case sounds a lot like the Little Sisters of the Poor case, it does.In fact, the district court cited the Little Sisters case several times in ruling that the mandate violated RFRA. Like the Obama administration, who couldn't leave a group of nuns in peace to serve people in need, the Biden administration has decided that it can't leave this other group of nuns in peace, either. So, it appealed the district court ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sisters of Mercy, as Luke Goodrich of the Becket Fund put it, "joyfully serve all patients regardless of sex or gender identity," and "routinely provide top-notch care to transgender patients for everything from cancer to the common cold." They also provide "millions of dollars in free and low-cost care [provided] to the elderly, poor, and underserved." Still, the Biden administration is ready "to punish [the Sisters] with multi-million dollar penalties" even though, as a federal appeals court wrote, "There is no medical consensus that sex reassignment surgery is a necessary or even effective treatment for gender dysphoria." In fact, there is ample evidence that gender reassignment surgery makes matters worse, not better. Given both precedent and the makeup of the federal courts, it's difficult to imagine the Biden administration will prevail in this case, especially at the Supreme Court. However, that is not the primary concern. Upstream from the courts is the larger culture, one not only quick to embrace and advance observably wrong ideas about the human person, but to sacrifice religious freedom in order to do it.

John Stonestreet and Maria Baer recount the challenging aspects of what happened in America this week. After recalling the details of the events surrounding the Derek Chauvin verdict following the death of George Floyd, John and Maria discuss a recent shooting in Ohio. They close with the challenging situation Planned Parenthood finds itself in as the organization works to distance from racist roots and the current reality that their abortion services overwhelmingly impact people of color.

John Stonestreet and Maria Baer recount the challenging aspects of what happened in America this week. After recalling the details of the events surrounding the Derek Chauvin verdict following the death of George Floyd, John and Maria discuss a recent shooting in Ohio. They close with the challenging situation Planned Parenthood finds itself in as the organization works to distance from racist roots and the current reality that their abortion services overwhelmingly impact people of color.

Seven years ago, Bloomberg Businessweek's cover story told professional women, "Freeze Your Eggs, Free Your Career." The story told of a woman in her late 30s, single and successful in her career, who spent $19,000 to have her eggs frozen. She planned to focus on a career now and keep open the possibility of marriage and kids later. It didn't turn out that way. Still single on her 45th birthday, she decided to have a child with the help of a sperm donor. However, her eggs failed to produce a child. She was crushed. This experience isn't uncommon. Writing at Evie Magazine, Molly Farinholt reports that, "a woman who freezes 10 eggs at age 36 has only a 30-60% chance of having a baby with them." Whatever "freeze your eggs" might accomplish for a woman's career, it's just wrong to say that it enables a woman to "have it all." Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have victims. This unnamed woman was sold a bill of goods. She is not only the victim of bad ideas widely assumed in our culture about sex, about babies, and about parents. Countless other victims, in fact, have been left in their wake. These ideas have reshaped imaginations, redefining what many think to be possible. Based on these remade imaginations, people make decisions. Often, what they have been promised fails to materialize. The central idea that has reshaped the cultural imagination is that sex, marriage, and babies are fully separable from one another. The "pill," shorthand for artificial birth control, gave tangible form to this idea. Separating sex and procreation drove the sexual revolution which, in turn, culturally accomplished separating sex from marriage. Bereft of its God-ordained unitive and procreative purpose, sex became, at best, an expression of personal affection or, at worst, a form of exploitation. The rise in out-of-wedlock birthrates, which accelerated in the late 1960s, signaled the final dissolution of childbirth and marriage. Still, the link between sex and childbirth remained, for obvious reasons. That link was severed by artificial reproduction technologies, such as IVF, sperm donation, and egg-freezing. Now, people could produce a child without sex or, for that matter, even having met one other. So, first we wanted sex without marriage. The only way that was possible was to secure sex without babies. Artificial reproduction accomplished that. Then, along the way, we wanted to remove any stigma from wanting babies without marriage or wanting marriage without babies. Finally, with artificial reproductive technologies, we want babies without sex. The divorce is complete. Even worse, it's complete and uncontested in the cultural imagination. So many Christians, especially Christian young people, simply cannot imagine the idea that sex, marriage, and babies are a package deal, or that separating them is a recipe for cultural chaos. The false narrative of the sexual revolution about sex, marriage, and babies is now deeply embedded even in the Christian imagination. Another bad idea is also implicated in this story about the failed promises of our technology. Businessweek's insistence that technology enables woman to "have it all" on her terms assumes that true freedom is doing whatever we want, free from any and all consequences. Tragically, biology didn't get that memo. Our cultural narratives do nothing to change underlying biological realities. Whatever promises we make, age remains "the single biggest factor affecting a woman's chance to conceive and have a healthy baby." Believing otherwise, or expecting that technology will rescue us from the consequences of our decisions, changes nothing. It still remains true that all of us, men as well as women, must make difficult choices. The first one may be reimagining and embracing a radically different vision of the good life than the one our culture peddles, especially when it comes to sex, marriage, and children. In particular, those called to marriage, and not all are, may need to recalibrate. After all, our priorities and our timeline may not match God's.

For years, abortion rights activists have attempted to downplay or even deny that Margaret Sanger, the closest thing the movement has to a patron saint, was motivated by racism. Planned Parenthood, the organization Sanger founded, widely celebrated her (even naming an award after her), as if her troubling words and actions could be somehow separated from the causes she championed. To be clear, Sanger considered abortion to be barbaric, but the organization that carries on her vision has embraced it as their primary strategy and largest source of revenue. In the wake of the "racial reckoning" of the past year, denying what the historical record plainly reveals about Sanger is no longer tenable. After all, many others, including those with a far less damning paper trail, have been denounced as racists. Sanger's re-evaluation was long past due. In a recent New York Times' op-ed, Planned Parenthood president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson, acknowledged Sanger's sordid history of racism, white supremacy, and eugenics. She acknowledged that "Sanger spoke to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey to generate support for birth control." She admitted that Sanger supported the Supreme Court's decision in Buck v. Bell, which upheld mandatory sterilization for those deemed "unfit" and which infamously proclaimed that "three generations of imbeciles is enough." She told her readers about something a colleague of mine knows as family lore: "The first human trials of the birth control pill — a project that was Sanger's passion later in her life — were conducted with her backing in Puerto Rico, where as many as 1,500 women were not told that the drug was experimental or that they might experience dangerous side effects." It's past time, Johnson wrote, to "take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and Black, Latino, Asian-American, and Indigenous people." However, wouldn't "taking responsibility" necessarily include evaluating whether Sanger's racist disdain for people of color and the marginalized lives on in Planned Parenthood's work? It does. In fact, Planned Parenthood is the most obvious example there is of systemic racism, a concept many people reject out of hand but shouldn't. Certainly, the idea of "systemic" or "institutional racism" is controversial. Too often, the accusation is a convenient blanket condemnation for anything a pundit or politician doesn't like, a way to demand policy changes or to subvert debate. Theologically speaking, it shouldn't be controversial to suggest that sin can take systemic or structural forms. That much is obvious throughout the Scripture and human history. Systems and structures often operate, with either intention or inertia, in such a way that certain groups are harmed. This is possible even if no one associated with the "systems and structures" harbors any ill will towards these groups. In the same way, just because Ms. Johnson is an African American or workers at Planned Parenthood aren't personally racist doesn't mean the organization isn't systemically and structurally targeting people of color. The abortion rate for African American women is nearly three times as high as that of white women. The rate for Hispanic women is nearly two times as high. By one estimate, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic neighborhoods. Whereas the average white woman might live her whole life without coming within 25 miles of one of these facilities, for many women of color, it's far easier to find an abortion clinic than a bank branch or a decent grocery store. Whether by design or not, it reveals a system or structure that disadvantages people of color in the most basic way possible, by depriving them of life. I can't say it any better than did former NFL star and human rights advocate Benjamin Watson: "Whether they personally identify with Sanger's ideology or not, they continue to carry out her mission, by serving as the leading executioner of our children. The same Sanger they claim to disavow would applaud their efforts and results, as a disproportionate percentage of Black children have been killed in Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics. Acknowledging a racist history does not absolve them of the blood on their hands, as they continue to take full advantage of victims of the racism they decry. Quite frankly, how much of a racist or eugenicist Sanger was or wasn't is of no real consequence right now as children die daily. The issue is that the profitability of abortion makes it a difficult cash cow to forgo. I urge Planned Parenthood to continue this 'reckoning,' not simply by calling out racism and combating white supremacy, but by using their wealth to meet the needs of mothers and their influence to halt, not perpetuate, the ultimate goal of a eugenic agenda, extermination of an undesirable's offspring." He's right. If Planned Parenthood is truly serious about eradicating Sanger's sordid legacy, it must abandon abortion. Otherwise, what Harpers called "The Racial Reckoning Within Planned Parenthood" is little more than posturing and public relations, which, I suspect, would please its founder.

John and Shane field a question from a listener whose workplace is hostile to the Christian faith. Hear how John encourages the committed Christian to live not by lies. Another listener writes-in to ask for resources for the elders of his church. He is looking to help his church respond with truth and love to culture issues, helping the church leadership understand immediate social challenges. To close, John fields a critique on a BreakPoint commentary related to Jack Phillips. The listener seeks to help frame the issue without falling into traps set inside legal structures. John provides a response to help Christians respond without compromising on Biblical truth.

Today, on the ninth anniversary of his death, I want you to hear from Chuck Colson about his birth. His new birth, that is. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is BreakPoint. Chuck Colson was one of the great evangelical leaders of the twentieth and early twenty-first century. He had an enormous influence on so many different organizations, so many different Christians leaders, and, of course, so many individual people. I can't tell you how many times I meet someone who tells me, "Chuck Colson was my mentor," even if they had never met him. They then go on to identify a book that Colson had written or a talk that he had given at some particular event. One of the striking things about it is that when someone names a book, it's almost inevitably a different book each time. Make no mistake: Colson's influence came about because of how Jesus Christ had changed his life. He was an incredibly gifted person. You have to be incredibly gifted to find your place just down the hall from the most important man on the planet some time in your thirties. Yet, this giftedness accompanied by what he would often admit was his pride, led Colson to an incredible fall, one that was public and in front of the entire world. But, he came to Christ, and that changed the trajectory of his entire life. He founded Prison Fellowship Ministries, and he also founded the Colson Center. So, today, on the ninth anniversary of his passing, I want you to hear Chuck Colson describe his own conversion, as he did on a BreakPoint that was on the thirtieth anniversary of that conversion. Here's Chuck Colson: Thirty years ago today, I visited Tom Phillips, president of the Raytheon Company, at his home outside of Boston. I had represented Raytheon before going to the White House, and I was about to start again. But I visited him for another reason as well. I knew Tom had become a Christian, and he seemed so different. I wanted to ask him what had happened. That night he read to me from Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, particularly a chapter about the great sin that is pride. A proud man is always walking through life looking down on other people and other things, said Lewis. As a result, he cannot see something above himself immeasurably superior — God. Tom, that night, told me about encountering Christ in his own life. He didn't realize it, but I was in the depths of deep despair over Watergate, watching the President I had helped for four years flounder in office. I had also heard that I might become a target of the investigation as well. In short, my world was collapsing. That night, as Tom was telling me about Jesus, I listened attentively, but didn't let on about my need. When he offered to pray, I thanked him but said, no, I would see him sometime after I had read C. S. Lewis's book. But when I got in the car that night, I couldn't drive it out of the driveway. Ex-Marine captain, White House tough guy, I was crying too hard, calling out to God. I didn't know what to say; I just knew I needed Jesus, and He came into my life. That was thirty years ago. I've been reflecting of late on the things God has done over that time. As I think about my life, the beginning of the prison ministry, our work in the justice area, our international ministry that reaches one hundred countries, and the work of the Wilberforce Forum and BreakPoint, I have come to appreciate the doctrine of providence. It's not the world's idea of fate or luck, but the reality of God's divine intervention. He orchestrates the lives of His children to accomplish His good purposes. God has certainly ordered my steps. I couldn't have imagined when I was in prison that I would someday go back to the White House with ex-offenders as I did on June 18 — or that we would be running prisons that have an 8 percent recidivism rate — or that BreakPoint would be heard daily on a thousand radio outlets across the United States and on the Internet. The truth that is uppermost in my mind today is that God isn't finished. As long as we're alive, He's at work in our lives. We can live lives of obedience in any field because God providentially arranges the circumstances of our lives to achieve His objectives. And that leads to the greatest joy I've found in life. As I look back on my life, it's not having been to Buckingham Palace to receive the Templeton Prize, or getting honorary degrees, or writing books. The greatest joy is to see how God has used my life to touch the lives of others, people hurting and in need. It has been a long time since the dark days of Watergate. I'm still astounded that God would take someone who was infamous in the Watergate scandal, and soon to be a convicted felon, and take him into His family and then order his steps in the way He has with me. God touched me at that moment in Tom Phillip's driveway, and thirty years later, His love and kindness touch and astound me still.

The practice of foot binding, tightly wrapping the feet of young girls in order to reshape them and prevent them from growing too large, began sometime during the ninth or tenth century in China. Small feet on women were considered attractive in Han Chinese culture and, over time, the practice grew increasingly extreme. In fact, by the sixteenth century, the foot binding process broke the bones in young girls' feet. The goal was to produce "lotus feet," with the ideal feet being no longer than 4 inches. Women with "lotus feet" were able to only manage small steps and would sway as they walked, something considered alluring by Chinese men. By the end of the nineteenth century, foot binding was deeply embedded as a cultural norm. Nearly half of all women in China and almost all upper-class Han women had their feet bound. Though a painful, debilitating, and abusive practice, having "lotus feet" was essential to securing a good marriage. In the space of one generation, foot binding disappeared. The successful campaign against foot binding was jointly led by Western missionaries and native Chinese Christians. In 1875, John Macgowan, a Belfast-born missionary with the London Missionary Society, was a key figure, and called a meeting of Chinese Christian women to oppose foot binding. Nine of these women agreed to not bind their daughters' feet, to not allow their sons to marry women with bound feet, and to undergo the painful process of unbinding their own. This was the beginning of the Quit-Foot-Binding Society, the first anti-foot binding society in China. Macgowan also convinced Chinese intellectuals, including the Buddhist reformer Kang Youwei, to oppose foot binding. In 1885, Kang founded the Foot Emancipation Society. In 1898, he wrote a memorandum to the Emperor urging him to abolish foot binding, arguing that it made China an object of international ridicule. Other anti-foot binding societies developed rapidly, some who were part of Kang's movement and others led by or inspired by foreign and Chinese Christians. In the end, Chinese Christian women took the lead to end foot binding. For example, Shi Meiyu was the daughter of a Methodist pastor who refused to allow her own feet to be bound. As the first Chinese woman to receive a medical degree from an American University, she founded two hospitals in China and labored tirelessly to abolish foot binding. The campaigns to end foot binding were remarkably successful. In 1902, the Empress Dowager Cixi banned foot binding, though her edict was rescinded. Then, in 1912, the newly founded Republic of China issued a ban. By 1949, at the start of the Communist revolution, the practice had stopped completely in all but a few rural areas. Social scientists have learned crucial lessons from the success of these campaigns. For example, the missionaries that began the fight against foot binding did not try to lead the movement. Instead, they recruited and helped organize indigenous Chinese to lead the movement. Though not all of these indigenous leaders and participants in the campaign were Christians, many were. The movement effectively drew in non-Christian intellectual leaders like Kang Youwei by using arguments grounded in the understandable Chinese desire for respect from other nations. In Shanghai, Alicia Little recognized the importance of basing her work against foot binding on ideas that made sense to non-Christians, instead of simply appealing to her Christian faith. Of course, Christianity is true and therefore aligns with reality. Thus, Little was able to find appropriate prudential arguments in order to make her case. Another important lesson from these anti-foot binding movements is how essential it is to form institutions that can preserve and promote core ideals. The success of these campaigns was largely due to the organizations Macgregor and others founded. In fact, establishing institutions may have been the critical factor in this campaign's success, compared to the failures of earlier attempts to end the practice. And, of course, these campaigns point to something seen repeatedly throughout history. Christians bringing the Gospel to pagan societies have always – always – found themselves defending children from bad ideas and abusive cultural norms. In our pagan times, stopping the assault on children about their God-given sex is a calling. We'd do well to learn from the Christians in China who worked to end foot binding. Start by making the Promise to America's Children, pledging to protect the minds, bodies, and the most important relationships of the children in your life. Come to BreakPoint.org to learn more and to sign your name to this important promise.

John Stonestreet visits with Dr. Carl Trueman, a Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies at Grove City College, Pa, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Faith and Freedom. Dr. Trueman's book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution, has been called the most important book of the past decade and is the featured resource for the Colson Center this month. Make any gift to the Colson Center during the month of April and we'll send you a copy of Dr. Trueman's book. We invite you to listen to John's discussion with Carl Trueman as they talk about the Image of God, the theme of the 2021 Wilberforce Weekend. Dr. Trueman has a special perspective to share and we are excited to have him in our lineup for the conference.