Breakpoint

There’s more than one recent example of DINKs, or “Dual-Income-No-Kids” married or cohabitating couples, boasting online about their double salaries and lack of responsibilities. DINKs, we are told, eat when and what they want, sleep as late as they wish, and pretty much follow whatever impulse arises.  If a movie began with a character going on this much about how life is all about him, or how she only worries about herself, or how happy he is not to care about anyone else, or how she goes after whatever she wants, you’d know up front that this is not the good guy (or girl), or that they were destined to be visited by three ghosts before the next morning.  The idea that nothing’s better than absolute freedom, and nothing worse than having to rely on others or have others rely on you is a lie. I suspect that if they make another video when they’re 80 or 90, it will be quite different. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

Last week, the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT refused to condemn calls for Jewish genocide as bullying or harassment. While horrible antisemitic speech and behavior have long been defended on their campuses, this debacle occurred before the United States Congress. The presidents attempted to appeal to free speech rights, differentiating between speech and conduct via statements obviously crafted by lawyers. Their comments shocked and outraged many. UPenn’s president resigned, after initially attempting to walk back her comments. Harvard’s president quickly apologized, while the MIT board of directors issued a statement in support of their president.  Recently, the pseudonymous Tyler Durden documented the scope of the left’s stranglehold on academia at the ZeroHedge website. A new survey by The Harvard Crimson found that more than three-quarters of surveyed Harvard faculty identified as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while just 2.9% identified as “conservative” or “very conservative.” Another study by Kevin Tobia at Georgetown University and Eric Martínez of MIT found that just 9% of law school professors at the nation’s top 50 law schools identify as conservative. A survey conducted last year by The College Fix found that 33 out of 65 academic departments across the nation lacked a single Republican professor.   Given this virtual monopoly, progressive academics should be confident enough to allow dissenting voices on campus every now and then. However, after years of conservative speakers being canceled and shouted down, it is clear that many progressives only wish to hear their own voices. Some professors have even resorted to denouncing free speech as a threat to their campus dominance.  Recently, a pair of faculty members from Arizona State University wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled (I am not making this up) “Dear Administrators: Enough with the Free-Speech Rhetoric! It concedes too much to right-wing agendas.” In the piece, Richard Amesbury and Catherine O’Donnell argue that “calls for greater freedom of speech on campuses, however well-intentioned, risk undermining colleges’ central purpose,” which, according to them, is “the production of expert knowledge and understanding.” Not all opinions ought to be heard, they argue, even opinions from dissenting experts, because “not all opinions are equally valid.”  The timing of their piece, just prior to the testimonies of the three Ivy League presidents, must be divinely determined.   According to these professors, opinions that are valid are “the product of rigorous and reliable disciplines” like the humanities, which include and often prioritize “the study of race and gender.” These departments, insist Amesbury and O’Donnell, are not part of the “public sphere,” a “speaker’s corner,” or even a “marketplace of ideas.” Instead, these departments and their campuses are sites of production for “expert knowledge and understanding,” and should therefore be exempt from free speech, democracy, and public debate. We should no more expect humanities departments to hire dissenting voices, they argue, than “a biology department to hire a creationist or a geography department to host a flat-earther.”  In other words, woke ideologies are above questioning, according to these professors. In the article, they express outrage that the “knowledge” produced in these fields is not “publicly perceived as authoritative.” That loss of credibility, they claim, is not because their ideas are absurd, but because of the “political efforts to delegitimize certain disciplines.”   As Durden wrote in his ZeroHedge piece, “many ... academics would be outraged if conservatives were to take hold of faculties and start to exclude their views as ‘unworthy.’” Yet progressive faculties and administrators aggressively redefine “expert opinion” as those who agree with them, silencing those who disagree on the grounds that they’re not experts.   The result is an echo chamber, not an education. Last week, the three Ivy League presidents discovered just how disconnected their echo chambers are from the rest of the world. Well, two of them did, anyway.  Polling confirms that institutions of higher learning suffer from a public credibility crisis. According to a recent Gallup poll, just 36% of Americans hold confidence in higher education, down 21 points since 2015. It’s impossible to look at what has happened on campuses in the last decade, or before Congress last week, and not conclude that this has more than a little to do with the “products” of left-wing “experts.”   Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims. Few institutions have propagated as many bad ideas and spat them into society as our universities. Among the needs of the hour is the proliferation of Christian scholarship and Christian colleges and universities. I’m hopeful that last week’s debacle before Congress is for Christian higher education what the 2020 school board videos and COVID online classrooms were for Christian K-12 schools. However, it’s only a win if the Christian colleges are truly Christian, truly colleges, and truly Christian colleges. Unfortunately, that seems to be a shrinking group of institutions. May God continue to raise up men and women willing to seek and speak truth, no matter how many so-called experts tell them to shut up.   This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

The Colson Center was among the original signatories of the Promise to America’s Children and the Promise to America’s Parents. A recent incident in Colorado shows why these promises are so important.   An 11-year-old girl on a school trip was assigned to share a bed with a male student who identified as female. Her parents were not given notice that this bed- and room-sharing would even occur. Thankfully, her mom was also on the trip and intervened when her daughter called in a panic.   Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the parents to hold the school district accountable. No school should ever enforce ideology at the expense of a child. Parents must protect the minds, bodies, and essential relationships of their children. This means that parents must never be kept in the dark, especially by schools and doctors.  To read, sign, and share the Promise to America’s Parents go to promisetoamericasparents.org.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

A new documentary entitled 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted Culture claims that the mistranslation of a word in the 1946 Revised Standard Version Bible led to the rampant “homophobia” that now infects the Church. In the film, a Bible researcher and an author claim that a Greek word found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 should not have been translated “homosexuality.”  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality … will inherit the kingdom of God.  The film claims that the word translated to “homosexuality” is a compound Greek word that combines the concept of an effeminate man with a man sharing a bed with another man. Though that sounds exactly like the definition of “homosexuality,” scholars in the film assure viewers that a “historical context” is being missed, and Paul was condemning sexual predation and pederasty rather than homosexuality. This claim is not new, nor is it or the film “groundbreaking,” as some have claimed.  The normalization of homosexuality has long included efforts to square the behavior with biblical morality. These efforts have taken various forms, such as appealing to the “truly loving God” who “would never” require people to deny their desires; or claiming a moral trajectory to the Bible so that prohibitions against homosexuality no longer apply. Of course, some simply reject the Bible as no longer relevant to our lives, while others employ this strategy of claiming the Scriptures were mistranslated.   What is clear from how often these arguments surface, how quickly they are embraced, and how passionately they are defended is that many people really, really wish that the Bible said something different about homosexuality than it does. Also clear is how unprepared many Christians are to respond to the latest reincarnation of one of these arguments, even when they are obviously untrue or, well, silly. While it can be difficult to remain confident in our convictions as the truth grows more unpopular, shaken confidence typically leads to either an embarrassed silence or a loud anger. Either way, it leaves those who need the truth without it.  This documentary is the latest example of pulling and positing arguments for LGBTQ affirmation out of thin air and then treating these arguments as legitimate. The trend began roughly 10 years ago, when Matthew Vines gave a speech in a Kansas church that went viral. Citing his personal struggles with same-sex attraction, Vines claimed that the Bible didn’t prohibit homosexual activity, because it couldn’t. If it did, he said, it would be too painful for gay people, and that pain would be the “bad fruit” about which Scripture warned.  Despite a 2,000-year history of Christian belief, tradition, and exegesis to the contrary, many found Vines’ assertions to be compelling, a fact that said far more about the sad state of Christian discipleship than his theology. Of course, twisting Scripture to justify belief or behaviors is not new. At no time until now did anyone attempt to claim that the Bible did anything but condemn homosexual acts, a historical fact that undermines the claim made in the documentary that Christian morality on this point dates back only several decades.   At the same time, this historical consistency exposes just how serious a problem it is when Christians find these new assertions so compelling. With few exceptions, the questions and complexities of Christian theology have been thoroughly explored and settled. Most challenges to Christian belief and morality leveled by cynics and skeptics have been answered. There is, however, a dramatic gap between the answers that are there, and the answers Christians know. The result is that even absurd assertions, like the one made in this new documentary, confirm the beliefs of the already convinced and convince many who should know better but don’t.  In fact, the strangest assertion in this new documentary is not even the claim of mistranslation. It’s the assertion that Christian opposition to homosexuality began in 1946.  The opposite is, of course, true. Despite all the theological squabbles about all sorts of things among various Christian groups throughout Church history, only in recent days and only in a very narrow part of the Western world has anyone doubted that the Bible rejects homosexuality.  Christians believe that God has revealed Himself in the world He made and in His Word. On this issue, both clearly tell the same story. In fact, they are the same story. Christians who know this will not be “tossed to and fro” by every wind of false doctrine or by the silly claims of a documentary.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

In a commentary last week, I discussed the tragic popularity of the new 988 national suicide hotline. Dramatic spikes in suicides and suicidality make this kind of intervention (and others) sadly necessary to prevent people from making an irreversible decision. I am thankful, however, that friends at the Restored Hope Network let me know that the hotline directs those who identify as LGBTQ to the Trevor Project, a radical advocacy group whose aim is to push young people toward sexual confusion. In this way, the new suicide hotline is undermining its own ends. Teens who identify as LGBTQ are four times more likely to contemplate and attempt suicide and more likely to struggle with other mental illnesses. The Trevor Project claims this is due to stigma, not mental illness, but that assertion doesn’t make sense. The suicide rate has continued to rise as cultural acceptance of LGBTQ ideology and identity has.   Christians must take the lead in suicide prevention. To learn how, go to colsoncenter.org/hopealways. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

From the earliest days of the Church, Christian theologians have marveled at the paradoxes found in the incarnation. Among the earliest expressions of this marveling comes from St. Augustine, the most influential theologian in Western Christianity.  Augustine was born in 354 in Thagaste, a Roman city in modern Algeria. A brilliant thinker, he initially rejected Christianity as an intellectually empty faith, despite the faithfulness of his mother. After wandering through various pagan philosophies, the equally brilliant St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, showed him how Christianity was superior to pagan philosophies. Augustine became a Christian, and eventually returned to Hippo, where he was elected bishop.  Augustine was an expert orator. He had been a teacher of rhetoric in Milan when he met Ambrose. As a Christian, he used his intellectual abilities and communication skills to address both the pressing theological issues and conflicts facing the Church in the late fourth and early fifth centuries as well as the challenges brought by opponents of Christianity. He also employed his impressive skills in his preaching. In his many years as bishop at Hippo, Augustine preached many Christmas sermons that discussed various aspects of the incarnation. One of his most striking sermons addresses the many paradoxes involved in God taking on human flesh. For example, in what is known as Sermon 184, which Augustine delivered sometime before A.D. 396, he pointed out the paradox of God’s sovereignty with the vulnerability of becoming a child:  "The one who holds the world in being was lying in a manger; he was simultaneously speechless infant and Word. The heavens cannot contain him, [yet] a woman carried him in her bosom. She was ruling our ruler, carrying the one in whom we are, suckling [the bread of life]."   In Sermon 191, delivered years later in either A.D. 411 or 412, Augustine was even more pointed about the paradox of the incarnation:  "The maker of man, he was made man, so that the director of the stars might be a babe at the breast; that bread might be hungry, and the fountain thirsty; that the light might sleep, and the way be weary from a journey; that the truth might be accused by false witnesses, and the judge of the living and the dead be judged by a mortal judge; that justice might be convicted by the unjust, and discipline be scourged with whips; that the cluster of grapes might be crowned with thorns, and the foundation be hung up on a tree; that strength might grow weak, eternal health [might] be wounded, life [might] die."  Like his listeners then, Augustine would want us to consider in the incarnation that which we so often overlook in our familiarity with the story. He also encouraged a response appropriate to the great mystery of the incarnation. In Sermon 184, he said:   "So then, let us celebrate the birthday of the Lord with all due festive gatherings. Let men rejoice, let women rejoice. Christ has been born, a man; he has been born of a woman; and each sex has been honored. Now therefore, let everyone, having been condemned in the first man, pass over to the second. It was a woman who sold us death; a woman who bore us life." As Augustine explained, Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh so that our sinful flesh might be cleansed and purified. This shows that it is not the flesh itself at fault, but the sin that corrupts it. That sin must die so that we might live. Thus, Augustine affirmed the created goodness of the body, and with it, the goodness of Creation. He also reminded his listeners that Jesus was born without sin so that we who have sin might be reborn through faith.  Not everything in Augustine’s Christmas sermons is as theologically clear, but we would do well to ponder his words on the wonder and the many paradoxes of the incarnation and join him in celebrating and rejoicing in the birth of our Lord.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

Three presidents of America’s most elite universities raised eyebrows this week in their testimony before Congress when they refused to denounce antisemitic hate speech on their campuses. And John and Maria discuss the ethical implications of homosexual couples having children via surrogates.   Recommendations  The Promise: A Celebration of Christ's Birth by Michael Card Remaking the World: How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West Segment 1: University Presidents and Antisemitism "WATCH: Safety First on Campus. Except for Jews" Segment 2: Guy Benson's surrogacy firestorm "Conservative media figures are using homophobia and misogyny to attack surrogacy and IVF" Segment 3: Stories of the Week Hiding the Stats on MAiD For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

Late last month, the Vital Statistics Council for Canada released new data about the country’s 2022 death rate, citing cancer, heart disease, and COVID-19 as the leading causes of death. Conspicuously absent was the number of Canadians killed under their country’s “Medical Assistance in Dying” program, which was 13,241 deaths last year.  When the public noticed the omission, Canadian officials clarified: MAiD deaths are officially attributed to whatever ailment the person cited as the reason for their suicide. Given how expansive MAiD has become, that means there will be deaths attributed to autism, anxiety, and other non-fatal conditions.  Not only will this hide the skyrocketing numbers of people in Canada dying by state-assistance, it will distort the data public health officials need to track diseases and health trends. Worst of all, it sends the message that disabilities, mental illness, and suffering in general can be as fatal as cancer if we’re not strong enough to handle them.   That is, like this “official report,” a lie. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

It’s not uncommon to hear that the divorce rate is the same inside the Church as outside. Though it’s not true, even Christians tend to repeat it as if it were. Both the kind of church a married couple attends, and how faithfully they attend, make a notable difference in marital stability.   In her new book, The Toxic War on Masculinity, Nancy R. Pearcey, professor and scholar in residence at Houston Christian University, refuted another widely held misnomer.   "Many people assume that most theologically conservative men are patriarchal and domineering. But sociological studies have refuted that negative stereotype. Compared to secular men, devout Christian family men who attend church regularly are more loving husbands and more engaged fathers. They have the lowest rates of divorce. And astonishingly, they have the lowest rate of domestic violence of any major group in America."   The research Pearcey is referring to here was first published by sociologist Brad Wilcox in 2017. As Pearcey notes, this research seems unknown, especially by Christians quick to self-flagellate. For example, Pearcey continues, the “Christian” men with the highest divorce rates are those who are not actually in church. She explains:  "Most of these men are nominal Christians, which means they are not particularly devout and attend church rarely if at all. They are prone to pick up terms like headship and submission but interpret them through a secular lens of power and control. Surprisingly, research has found that nominal Christian men have the highest rates of divorce and domestic violence—even higher than secular men. … Nominal men skew the statistics, creating the false impression that evangelical men as a group are abusive and domineering." When Pearcey shared these stats online after her book came out, it elicited a cynical and even angry reaction. Pearcey responded by insisting that she did not share the data in defense of complementarianism.  "I simply report what the psychologists and sociologists find in their studies of complementarian men. I was totally surprised at how positively they test out. I've been asked why I focused on complementarian couples—the answer is that they are the ones being studied. They’re the ones being attacked as inherently oppressive, abusive patriarchs."   Unsurprisingly, many responded with stories of bad behavior by men in conservative churches. But, of course, Pearcey was not asserting that abuse never occurs in conservative churches among those with conservative views about men and women. In fact, she opens her new book with the story of her own abusive, churchgoing father.  Rather, what Pearcey is arguing in The Toxic War on Masculinity is that a man’s conservative views about gender roles aren’t as important as his views of the importance and centrality of the family. These husbands, Wilcox has reported, “believe marriage is not primarily about individual fulfillment but about forming a stable, loving home to raise a family. They hold to an ideal of fidelity and permanence.” It is because of this view that conservative husbands tend to care about their family the way they do. And, among the positive outcomes are wives who tend to be “the happiest of all wives in America.”   Once again, Christianity proves to be good. It makes better humans, both men and women. It matters whether or not husbands and wives take the family seriously. It matters whether they think it’s important to fulfill the creation mandate of Genesis 1, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” It matters whether they take seriously the words of Jesus when He quoted Genesis 2, that the husband and wife “are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”   Apparently, it really matters what men think about themselves, about women, and about families. Though men are often told there is something inherently wrong with being male, as Pearcey writes, "The evidence shows that Christianity has the power to overcome toxic behavior in men and reconcile the sexes—an unexpected finding that has stood up to rigorous empirical testing."  Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity is especially important right now, given all the myths and the lies about men that are so often repeated in our world. It’s thoughtful and sound, carefully researched and well-written. Even more, it’s profoundly helpful.   As Pearcey exhorts us in her book, “We should be bold about bringing [the truth about men] into the public square.”   Thankfully, her book equips us to do just that.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Heather Peterson.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

Late last month, Hungarian national Dániel Karsai, who has a progressive neurodegenerative condition, challenged Hungary’s ban on assisted suicide before the European Court of Human Rights. Alliance Defending Freedom International has intervened in the case, standing up against the so-called “right to die.”   In a recent press release, they described the current European landscape when it comes to assisted death:  "Of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, only six have legalized assisted suicide. The practice has been rejected by legislators in the vast majority of countries. … Countries that have legalized euthanasia now allow the intentional killing of children, those who are physically healthy, and those who have not given their consent."  Historically, the “right to die” quickly devolves into a “duty to die” and compromises the conscience rights of physicians and caretakers. Christians must stand for life whenever and however we can. We must always be those who work to heal and never to harm. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org