Breakpoint

In 2015, Drag Queen Story Hour launched in San Francisco. Exactly what it sounds like - men dressed as women (often provocatively) reading stories (often provocatively) to young kids in schools or public libraries - the organization now operates across the country. "Dressing in drag" almost always involves exaggerated makeup, exaggerated hair, and gaudy, sexually suggestive clothing. One goal of Drag Queen Story Hour, according to its website, is to celebrate "people who defy rigid gender restrictions." It's a strange claim for a group that relies so heavily on exaggerated stereotypes of femininity. Instead of "defying rigid gender restrictions," their "performances" portray their small, shriveled imagination of what it is to be a woman. The larger transgender movement also relies almost completely on this kind of stereotyping. The feminist movement spent decades trying to dismantle stereotypical tropes such as "girls like pink and play with dolls" and "boys like sports and red meat," and yet, here we are telling boys who like pink or girls who like baseball they were born in the wrong bodies, on no other evidence but those same stereotypes. Christianity offers a far better message about who we are as male and female. To share it effectively, we'll need a strategy that goes beyond merely protecting religious liberty, as important as that is. To be clear, we must do that hard work of preserving conscience protections for individuals and institutions who do not capitulate to the demands of the transgender movement. At the same time, as more and more young people (especially middle school girls) suddenly claim to be the opposite gender, we have to do more than just say "no." We have to elevate God's good design. We have to articulate what it is to be a woman and not a man; or a man and not a woman. Unfortunately, with many exceptions, the Church hasn't always done a great job of this. In fact, the Church often resorts to stereotypes, too, though usually in a more positive direction and with better intentions. Still, in our zeal to resist harmful teachings on gender so prevalent in our culture for so long, we have often failed to understand why God would make men and women and make them so different. Instead, we have reduced the answers to these incredibly important questions to culturally contingent things such as "gender roles" or, even worse, gender-based restrictions, without careful theological reflection on God's design. It makes sense. After all, lists are easier to grasp a list than sacred mysteries, and the concept of "roles" isn't a bad one. Roles and lists are attempts to flesh out the implications of design within certain contexts. Some roles will never change. For example, only women will ever be mothers, and only men will ever be fathers. Other roles do change as cultural norms change. The biblical vision of male and female is beautiful. Men and women were made differently but point to the same dynamic God. When God created both Adam and Eve, He said they both were created in His Image and were "very good." It's notable that before the author of Genesis reveals Eve's name, he reveals she also was made in the image of God. According to theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand, the point of our gendered design is "to be transformed into Christ, to become holy and glorify God, and to reach eternal communion with God… [t]he specific tone of masculinity and femininity must appear by itself." The experience of living as men and women in the world will be varied, though there are certainly uncrossable boundaries. Our best expressions of our gender are demonstrated not by conforming to stereotypes, but by conforming to Christ in the unique ways men and women are each called. The men and women that appear throughout the Scriptures are not portrayed as epitomized versions of their gender. Rather, they reveal the glory and power of God, which is, Paul says, made perfect in our weakness. Women can't be men, and men can't be women. That may not sound like good news to someone suffering with gender dysphoria, but it is. Both men and women, in their differences, point in unique ways to Jesus. Across these differences, both men and women must carry crosses in order to follow Him. That maleness and femaleness are gifts, and not constraints, is very good news in an increasingly gender-hostile world.

On June 4, 2018, it looked like Jack Phillips's long legal nightmare was finally over. The Supreme Court had ruled in his favor in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, verbally smacking down the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for attempting to coerce him into using his artistic skills to endorse a message and slandering his religious views in the process. Finally, after several years of fighting, Jack could return to his business and his artistry without compromising his faith. Or so he thought. On the very day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, June 26, 2017, local Denver attorney Autumn Scardina called Jack and asked him to create a pink and blue cake celebrating his "gender transition." Phillips's staff replied that his religious beliefs precluded him from creating a cake to express that message. That account was, by the way, Scardina's as well—at least at first. Scardina then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The Commission, even after the Supreme Court decision, found probable cause to proceed with this new accusation. In response, Jack filed a federal lawsuit against the Commission, alleging that it was carrying out a vendetta against him. In March 2019, Colorado officials announced that Scardina's case before the Commission had been dismissed with prejudice. Finally, end of story, right? No. Scardina responded by filing a private lawsuit alleging Phillips had violated Colorado's anti-discrimination laws. Scardina's personal vendetta to get Jack faces two significant obstacles. First, his original complaint with the Commission was dismissed with prejudice. In other words, Scardina has had his day in court. Second, Scardina has told different versions of the events of June 2017. Initially, Scardina admitted that Jack had, because of his religious beliefs, declined the request to create a custom pink and blue cake in order to celebrate a gender transition. In the private suit, Scardina changed stories, suggesting that Jack turned down a request for a simple pink and blue cake only after learning that Scardina identified as transgender. And, with that changed story, Scardina also accused Jack of violating Colorado's consumer protection laws with false advertising. Though no one would consider news articles and a fundraising site for a Supreme Court case "advertising," Scardina pointed to them, and Jack's claim that he chooses to create cakes based on the message they convey, not the sexual orientation or gender identity of the customer. Even if Jack's statements are stretched and called "advertising," they still are not, as the Alliance Defending Freedom pointed out, a "promise to create every cake requested of him, no matter the cake's message." Scardina's claims are farcical, but the judge refused to completely dismiss the case. Instead, he permitted Scardina to file an amended complaint--twice. In the second amended complaint Scardina claims to have requested the cake out of pity for Jack, after hearing how much business Masterpiece Cakeshop had lost. Jack's lawyers at ADF are opposing this motion. At this point, Jack Phillip's latest trial is scheduled to begin in March. The stakes are enormous. If Scardina prevails on the consumer protection claim, Jack could potentially have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees, which would put him out of business for good. Jack's legal battles have gone on for nearly a decade. He lost his wedding cake business, and tens of thousands of dollars in time and lost revenue. The Alliance Defending Freedom has been with him every step of the way, but he needs our support as well. After all, he is fighting a battle for our freedom as well. Please pray for a successful outcome in this trial. Pray for Jack's strength and courage. Pray that Scardina will have a change of heart and will just leave Jack alone. Also consider supporting Jack financially. If you are able to purchase goods and services from him directly, I can assure you he hasn't lost his touch. There's also a page where you can donate to support him.

John and Shane field questions from listeners. Today they give an encompassing explanation to how we define inspiration in the Biblical canon. They identify cultural trends that steer the question and provide strong traditional explanation that provides structure in thinking well on the issue of authenticity and accuracy in the Biblical canon. Shane then engages a question on definitions for the Christian family. The questioner seeks to understand a line or border that defines a liberal or conservative way of thinking that might be outside the framework of Scripture and thus place a person or way of thinking in futility and outside the kingdom.

Sunday marked the 203rd birthday of a monumentally important figure in American history, a man who truly understood what it means that every human being is made in the image of God. Frederick Douglass was a former slave, abolitionist, supporter of women's suffrage, orator, writer, adviser to Presidents, and diplomat. All of this is well known, but one of the most misunderstood elements of his life story was his deep and abiding Christian faith. Born in Talbot County, Maryland, in 1818, Douglass' mother was a slave. His father may have been her owner. Douglass was sent to work in the Baltimore home of Hugh Auld. Auld's wife violated both the law and her husband's instructions by Douglass him to read. When Douglass was later hired out to a man named William Freeland, he began teaching other slaves to read. Specifically, he taught them to the New Testament at the weekly church service. Freeland himself didn't object, but other slave owners did and forcibly broke up the church. After two attempts to escape, Douglass finally succeeded with the help of Anna Murray, a free black woman from Baltimore. Disguised as a sailor, he made his way to New York. In 1838, he and Murray were married, and the couple settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts, where they adopted the name Douglass. Douglass attended the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and in 1839 became a licensed preacher. He was also a steward, sexton, and Sunday school superintendent. Douglass joined a number of anti-slavery societies and began subscribing to William Lloyd Garrison's journal "The Liberator." His eloquence and powerful personal story made him a popular speaker at abolition rallies. Not all of them ended well. In Pendleton, Indiana, his hand was broken when a mob attacked him. Rescued by a Quaker family, his hand was improperly set and bothered him for the rest of his life. In 1845, Douglass published his first autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. The book was so eloquent that some wouldn't accept that it could have been written by a black man. It became an immediate bestseller and was published in America and in Europe. To avoid being arrested and sent back to the Aulds as a runaway, Douglass spent two years in Britain and Ireland, giving lectures to packed houses and meetings. There, he met Thomas Clarkson, one of the original British abolitionists. Although Douglass was a strong advocate for Irish Home Rule, the British were so impressed with Douglass that they raised the money to purchase his freedom from the Aulds, enabling him to return to America safely. Back in the U.S., he began publishing "The North Star," his first abolitionist paper. Its motto was "Right is of no Sex—Truth is of no Color—God is the Father of us all, and we are all brethren." During the Civil War he advised President Lincoln on the treatment of black Union Soldiers and later discussed black suffrage with Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. From 1889-1891, Douglas served as Minister-in-Residence and Consul General to Haiti. Douglass also sought to reconcile with the Auld family, meeting with Thomas Auld himself—an act in keeping with his Christian convictions. Frederick and Anna had five children. In February 1895, Douglass died of a massive stroke or heart attack. He was buried in Rochester, New York. Douglass was a deeply committed Christian, yet (or perhaps better put, so) he was highly critical of the shallow "Christianity" he saw in America, particularly in the South. Even though skeptics have used these criticisms to paint Douglass as an atheist, he set the record straight in the Appendix of the Narrative: "What I have said respecting and against religion," he wrote, "I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper…. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land." Frederick Douglass's life was a marvelous fusion of biblical teaching, conversion, personal piety, and social action. His life and work had a profound impact on the United States and beyond, and was shaped by his conviction that we are all made in the image of God. For a fuller account of Douglass's amazing life, come to BreakPoint.org to read Dr. Glenn Sunshine's article on him as part of his series "Christians Who Changed Their World."

Last month, after more than ten years in hiding, Lisa Miller surrendered herself to American authorities at the U. S. Embassy in Managua, Nicaragua. Miller, now in custody at the federal detention center in Miami, faces kidnapping and conspiracy charges. She'll likely be found guilty but, in reality, she's a victim of bad ideas. A mom, attempting to protect her daughter from her own bad choices and our society's attempt to redefine marriage, parenting, and the family. The legal case is as complicated as the story behind it. In 2000, Miller and her partner Janet Jenkins moved from Virginia to Vermont to take advantage of Vermont's civil union law. Two years later, Miller bore a child, Isabella, conceived through artificial insemination. A year later, in 2003, Miller and Jenkins separated. Miller then moved back to Virginia with her daughter, who was only 17-months old. In 2004, Miller and Jenkins asked the Vermont Family Court to legally dissolve their civil union. The court agreed and awarded Miller primary custody. However, in an unprecedented move, the court awarded visitation rights to Jenkins. To that point, though she had agreed to pay child support, Jenkins had no legally recognized parental relationship with Isabella. She had only lived with Isabella during the first year of the child's life, but the court treated Jenkins as if she were a biological or adoptive parent. It's difficult to image a court doing this, for example, in the case of an unrelated live-in boyfriend. Later that year, a Virginia court ruled that Miller was Isabella's sole legal parent. However, Jenkins appealed, arguing that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act required Virginia to honor the Vermont court's ruling. Also at play was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a federal statute designed to prevent states from being forced to recognize the civil unions of other states. Despite all this, in the end, the Virginia Supreme Court sided with Jenkins. By this time, Miller had become a Christian. Not wanting her daughter exposed to the lesbian lifestyle of her former partner, Miller defied the order of the Vermont court and denied Jenkins visitation. In response, Vermont awarded Jenkins primary custody of Isabella. In 2009, Miller fled the United States with Isabella who was, by then, seven years old. With the help of a Mennonite pastor, they first crossed the border into Canada and then made their way to Nicaragua, where they have lived since fleeing the U.S. Now that Isabella is 18 years old, the court's custody order no longer applies. The parental kidnapping charges, on the other hand, do still apply to Miller. Before turning herself in, her final appeal was to the Trump administration for a pardon, which the President did not grant. As she must have known in surrendering herself to the U.S. embassy, mercy from the state of Vermont is highly unlikely. In a very real sense, this is a story about consequences. Miller is still dealing with the consequences of entering a relationship that was by definition sterile and then demanding a child. She's also facing the cost of repenting and following Christ, something our Lord tells us to "count" before following Him. She's facing the consequences of her commitment to protect her daughter from the damage of her previous lifestyle. Out of legal options, she chose to disobey the state as long as necessary in order to protect her daughter, but she's also accepting the consequences of her disobedience. For Christians in the days ahead, Miller's story, especially her choices and their consequences, offer incredibly important lessons. At the same time, Miller is facing consequences of a culture, especially as it is reflected in decisions made by our courts and the legislature, legalizing same-sex unions and sacrifice the well-being of children on the altars of adult desires. No real thought was given to the impact these irregular unions would have on children, never mind what could happen to kids after these unions dissolve. Custody fights are always nasty, even when there is a biological connection! Only when same-sex unions are involved do we pretend as if a biological connection is irrelevant. As I often say, ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims. It's hard to think to think of a better example than the tragic case of Lisa and Isabella Miller. Please pray for the Millers.

Trevin Wax shared about Proverbs 16:16, encouraging those in the Time of Guided Prayer to get wisdom. Trevin K. Wax is the Bible and Reference Publisher for LifeWay Christian Resources. A former missionary to Romania, Trevin hosts a blog at The Gospel Coalition and regularly contributes to the Washington Post, Religion News Service, World and Christianity Today, which named him one of 33 millennials shaping the next generation of evangelicals. His books include Eschatological Discipleship, This Is Our Time, and Gospel-Centered Teaching among other published works. He and his wife, Corina, have three Children.

Two days before Christmas, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries confirmed that its founder had engaged in sexual misconduct over the course of many years and promised further information when the investigation into the matter was complete. Late Thursday afternoon, RZIM released the full report as they had received it, along with an extended, contrite statement of apology. Ravi was a significant personal influence and a great friend of the Colson Center. When Ravi died in May of last year, we honored him. At the time, both Ravi and RZIM leadership claimed that allegations of an inappropriate relationship had been dismissed and disproven after a thorough investigation. We trusted the information provided to us. We were wrong. I both believed and shared excuses that explained Ravi's behavior. By doing that, I was wrong and misled others. To be clear, no one at the Colson Center had any sense just how much would be revealed in this final report. But I wish I had not been so quick to trust what I wanted to be true. There is no sugar-coating, excusing, or explaining away Ravi's behavior. It was sinful. It was wicked. And, as this report made crystal clear, it was duplicitous. Reading through it, I couldn't shake the words I heard time and time again from Chuck Colson: "There is no limit to the human capacity for self-rationalization." That's why Proverbs uses the word "folly" to describe sin. As a mentor of mine used to say, sin makes us dumb. Buried in sin, we become fools, actually convincing ourselves that, for the first time in human history, we will be the ones to get away with it. As sin takes us deeper than we ever imagined possible, others are dragged along into our self-deception. Sin always leaves other victims, human beings made in the image of God and for whom Christ died. The number of women Ravi abused, and the degree to which he deceived them, is breath-taking. RZIM has committed to make restitution and care for these women. I hope and pray they will. And there are other victims to remember: family members, friends, and the many disillusioned others around the world. Recently, a BreakPoint listener emailed us asking how we should respond to cases like this, when a Christian leader or teacher is caught in sexual misconduct. Is it possible to separate the good that they've done and the truth they've taught, the person and their sin? And, what about in cases such as this, when the perpetrator is gone and has no further opportunity to acknowledge his sins, repent, and seek forgiveness? We need not deny that Ravi's teaching helped many Christians make sense of the Faith, deal with their doubts, and engage other people with the Gospel, in order to acknowledge the depth of his depraved behavior. As my colleague Shane Morris pointed out a few weeks ago, no one is "made of finer clay" than anyone else. As St. Paul wrote, "There is none righteous, no not one." It's also important to remember, to borrow a phrase popularized by Christian educator Arthur Holmes, "all truth is God's truth." In other words, if Ravi Zacharias ever said anything true in his life, and of course he did, he was not its source but only its medium. Any truth – all truth – comes ultimately from God, outside of time or place or context. Even if delivered by the most sinful voices, truth is as eternal and unchanging as God Himself. A postmodern worldview, in contrast, relativizes truth to cultural settings or individuals. In other words, truth is not absolute. But, if truth is dependent on the shifting sands of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions of a culture or an individual, anything we build on it must collapse when any of those things do. Of course, knowing that doesn't make what's happened any less painful, disorienting, or consequential, especially for all those women involved. Having talent, even amazing talent, to communicate does not give one a divine right or inherent privilege (and it is an incredible privilege) to have or to keep a public platform. Scripture is clear: teachers are stewards of the truth, and therefore held to a higher standard. This is not the same thing as cancel culture, which is so popular in our time. Cancel culture cancels people because of their different beliefs. This is about behavior; this is about reprehensible behavior that deeply harmed other people. Finally, let this be a reminder to not trust ourselves, but only God and His Spirit. Pray for your pastor, church leaders, spouse, and whomever else God has put in your life. We need His protection from the real and ever-present temptations, as well as from our own capacity to deceive ourselves and then rationalize our behavior.

John Stonestreet and Maria Baer note that the focus of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump is centering on the power of words: What did then-President Trump say, and did his words incite violence? Also in this episode: Did cancel culture strike again in the case of now-former Mandalorian star Gina Carano? And for all you philosophy and worldview fans, John discusses the ironic alarm in France (the home of prominent post-modern philosophers) over the "threat" of American wokeness. They wrap up the show with their recommendations for Lent.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis warned about the high stakes of overindulging our sexual desires. If men indulged their sexual appetites every time they were inclined, he said, and if each act produced a baby, one man could easily populate a small village. Seventy years after Mere Christianity was published, one Dutch man is fulfilling that prophecy. In an investigative piece published last week, The New York Times uncovered that Jonathan Jacob Meijer has fathered hundreds of children through sperm donation. Most of his children were born in the Netherlands; but Meijer also donated in several other countries, including the U.S. Sometimes he donated at clinics; sometimes he met customers on private websites and handed over vials of his sperm in person. The Times' take is obvious: Meijer is the bad guy of this story. The report tells the plight of a handful of his female "customers" who are now scrambling to find their children's half-siblings. The women are furious. "It's disgusting and I want it to stop," one woman told the Times. Her revulsion is easy to understand. But her moral outrage, frankly, isn't. She wanted sperm from a stranger with whom she had no intention of raising the child. She got the sperm, and she got the child she desired. Is she suggesting that she should be able to purchase part of that man's body but no one else should be able to? Of course, it's horrifying that one man has fathered this many children he has no relational connection to. And the genetic consequences alone could be catastrophic. But this man is simply taking advantage of a system that was set up precisely toward those ends. Sperm donation is notoriously unregulated. Here in the U.S., there are almost no laws governing the industry; only recommendations from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One of those is that clinics shouldn't allow one sperm donor to father more than 25 children. Setting aside that crazy number, clinics have no way to actually keep track. Women aren't required to report births, and clinics don't know whether sperm donors are also giving at other clinics. It's pure fantasy to think we know how many children are born of each donor. By the sperm donation industry's own measures, Jonathan Jacob Meijer is a success story. Here's a man whose sperm was popular, and therefore the whole process was lucrative. He said the right things. According to one customer, he claimed to just want to "help women make their biggest wish come true." The New York Times may try to portray Meijer's story like a freak show but make no mistake: this freak show is the industry's best-case scenario. When a system is built with no moral norms, when the lies that children and marriage have nothing to do with each other and children don't have a right to both their mom and their dad are baked into an industry, when men (and in the case of surrogacy) women are shopped like products; we can't turn around and play horrified when the results make us feel weird. In fact, it's disingenuous to portray these women, as The Times article did, as having no moral responsibility in this situation they helped create. In this culture, all morality having to do with sex and procreation has been stripped down to some flimsy notion of "consent." But, when something goes wrong, as it has here, we suddenly pretend women were the victims, with no agency whatsoever. One woman in the Times article said she only learned after her first child that Meijer had possibly fathered hundreds of other children. She still used his sperm a second time, because, she said, she wanted her kids to be full siblings. Sperm donation intentionally creates fatherless children, treating both men and children as products to serve adult happiness. That the women in this story are outraged in understandable, but they're outrage is actually a demand for something they deliberately forfeited when they turned to sperm donation: exclusivity. That's what marriage provides. Our felt desire for children is God-given and it is good. Believing we are entitled to children, especially outside of the God's brilliant and good designed, is a perversion. There are no "good guys" in a system built on a lie, despite what the Times article portrays, but there are victims. No amount of moral outrage or even regulation can fix an industry like this. Sperm donation should be categorically prohibited. Until then, it will, as always, be the children who suffer the most.

Francis Schaeffer described how ideas escape the ivory towers of universities and think tanks eventually to shape how ordinary people think, speak, and view their world. This past year, one idea made that journey in record time. Not that long ago, conversations involving Critical Race Theory were largely relegated to academic papers, classroom discussions, and scholarly journal articles. Today, dialogues about CRT can be found across social media, in corporate boardrooms, and even in the Church. As a theory, CRT descends from European and North American philosophical traditions, particularly Marxism and Postmodernism. Like these worldviews of its intellectual ancestry, CRT sees the world in terms of power dynamics. In this way of thinking, social evils such as poverty, crime, or oppression result not from universal human frailties but from Euro-Americans intent on securing and increasing their economic and social power. Based on this metanarrative, equality and justice demand privileging the stories of those kept out of power. CRT sees members of the oppressed group as morally right, and members of the oppressor group as morally wrong. CRT, like any worldview framework, should be evaluated. That, however, is easier said than done, even in the Church. Advocates often point to common ground between Critical Race Theory and the Christian worldview (for example, the commitment to justice and human dignity), and label any critiques of CRT as convenient ways to avoid confronting injustice and racism (which may not be true, but often is). Many Christian critics, myself included, are specifically concerned with how CRT conflicts with a Christian worldview, particularly in areas of identity and morality. Not everyone agrees. Recently on Twitter, a defender of CRT boldly tweeted, "Whoever told you CRT is a worldview was either lying to you or didn't know what they were talking about." Of course, assuming malice or greed is a way of dodging the question rather than making an argument. Another Twitterer offered a different response, "If CRT is bad because it's a 'secular worldview' and we must only derive our worldviews 'biblically' then I better not see a TRACE of Aristotle or Plato in your worldview either, brother." This one is a slightly more clever way of missing the point or, specifically misunderstanding what it means for a worldview to be "biblical." To have a Christian worldview is to hold views that are consistent with the Bible, not only to have views that are in the Bible. The problem with Critical Race Theory is not that it isn't found in the Bible; it's that it offers a very different explanation of humanity, sin, and redemption than the Bible does. Simply speaking, like the postmodernism that birthed it, Critical Race Theory can be considered a worldview. It does more than just offer a handful of specific ideas about race and society; CRT offers a complete framework of beliefs, a universalizing story of the world. CRT describes who we are, what's wrong with the world, and prescribes how to fix it and what "better" would be. In other words, like Christianity, CRT answers the basic questions any worldview does. Except, the answers CRT provides are very different than those Christianity offers, even if both worldviews recognize the world is broken by evils such as racism and injustice. Critical Race Theory has critical errors. By simplistically reducing evil to power dynamics and external social realities, CRT denies moral agency and the redemptive potential of entire groups of people because of their racial identity. At the same time, those who oppose Critical Theory must do more than simply write off all its concerns. Like Marxism, Critical Theory is something of a Christian heresy, taking the Christian themes of human dignity and justice and a world remade, and re-orienting these causes under new management. Most pertinently, CRT is slipping into the space where the Church belongs but is too often absent. If we don't want unbiblical explanations of life and justice sweeping through the Church or culture, we'd better make sure we communicate and embrace the full ramifications of Christian truth for society, and then act justly and love mercy. If we rob our Faith of its social implications, we are no longer talking about Christianity, and such a personalized, privatized moral system may make me feel better, but it will never stand up to the rival worldviews of our day. Over the next four Tuesday nights, The Colson Center is hosting an online course taught by Dr. Thadeus Williams, on his book, Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth. This is the book I've been waiting for, the book that carefully and biblically walks through a Christian view of justice. Dr. Williams carefully explains not only why theories like CRT aren't true, but what the Bible asks of Christ's followers when it comes to justice. Space is limited. Register today at breakpoint.org/Williams. Because, the best antidote for the failings of Critical Theory and its inadequate worldview is for the Church to understand and live consistently with the Bible.