Breakpoint

Ideas tend to sprout up in academia, but the ones that matter do not stay there. Even when birthed in seemingly abstract fields like epistemology (the study of knowledge), ideas can have a major impact on culture. This is especially evident in the modern to postmodern shift from an objective and verifiable understanding of truth to a subjective and socially constructed understanding of truth. This shift has landed us in what can be called "standpoint epistemology." Standpoint epistemology is the view that everything we think and know, and even what we consider knowledge to be, is determined solely by our race, "gender," sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other identity categories. Objectivity, in this view, is impossible, and no perspective can claim superiority over any other since there is no external standard by which to measure. Standpoint epistemology is essential to Critical Theory, especially its priority of championing "marginal voices;" specifically those groups seen as victims, oppressed, or invisible in Western societies. These groups not only have a particularly important but overlooked perspective, they have one that is more valid and more valuable than those from privileged groups. The privileged, in fact, should be ignored or treated with contempt, according to this view. Or, to paraphrase George Orwell, all perspectives are equal, but some are more equal than others. Standpoint epistemology has had a keenly negative influence on the humanities. Classics, from Homer to Shakespeare, are often replaced not with classics from non-Western cultures but with works that reflect the contemporary fads of academics. In the study of history, the truth of standpoint epistemology is treated as universal and absolute (which, of course, contradicts it). Western history is reduced to a simplistic morality play where everything is seen as power dynamics, with evil oppressors and the virtuous oppressed. It is assumed that since "history is written by the winners," the narrative priority is to subvert traditional history and highlight marginal voices to show that the "winners" were actually oppressors. Western history, therefore, is mostly seen through the lens of colonial studies, the story of villainous colonizers and innocent indigenous peoples. Though true up to a point, telling the story only in this way ignores verifiable historical facts and force fits history into a framework dictated by contemporary sensibilities. What this means in practice is that Spanish brutality in Mexico is condemned as intolerable while the slavery, oppression, and human sacrifice of Aztec society is nuanced, overlooked, or even celebrated. The United States is an imperial power unjustly driving indigenous tribes off their lands, but tribes that did the same to their equally indigenous neighbors are excused. If standpoint epistemology is true, then it is impossible to understand the past or learn from it. People are stripped of a true understanding of their history and culture, and thus of a critical part of their identity. Non-Westerners are dehumanized and stripped of agency, reduced to pawns of the more powerful. Long embedded in the humanities, these same ideas are now making inroads into the STEM fields. In some school districts, the idea that there are right and wrong answers in math is presented as an example of white supremacy and oppression. A problem cannot, in this view, have a single correct answer, since that implies there is objective truth in math. Of course, the same mathematics used to build a bridge in the United States is also used in Africa, but that doesn't matter to the ideologues promoting these ideas. This misguided embrace of standpoint epistemology will, in the end, make it far more difficult for students to pursue careers in business, finance, engineering, or the sciences. As we often say, ideas have consequences and bad ideas have victims. Standpoint epistemology is a bad idea, and we've only now begun to see the victims that will be left in its wake. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

The rising generation is our most educated generation if you compare the number of millennials who completed bachelor's degrees with that of previous generations. However, as British commentator Peter Hitchens recently pointed out, being "schooled" isn't the same as being "educated." What he said about British schools could be applied to many U.S. ones: "Our education system teaches the young what to think, not how to think. And if you ever wonder why so many things don't work properly any more, or why you can't get any sense out of so many organisations, this is one of the main reasons." When students are indoctrinated in critical theories regarding gender and race, when pushback is considered "harassment" or "racism," and when the main point is to sexualize kids, it's not education. As Steven Garber has written, "Education, always and everywhere, is about the deepest questions of life and the world." Education wrestles with the hard questions, training students to think critically and creatively. Christians have always championed education. We can today too. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was first released on 12.7.22.

In the last few years, the credibility of science or, more accurately, scientists, has taken more than a few hits. Take for instance the rush by many doctors, researchers, academics, and medical institutions to force transgender ideology on children. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society have both issued guidelines for medically transitioning minors. From the beginning, maverick scientists have called foul, pointing out that the safety and long-term effectiveness of such "treatments" had not been evaluated. It seems now that only real-world consequences for actual children can curb the enthusiasm for untested and misguided experimentation on kids. In 2022, the U.K.'s largest gender clinic announced its closure over a lack of evidence to support its ghoulish interventions. Shortly afterward, U.K. lawyer Tom Goodhead estimated that around 1,000 families would join in legal action against the clinic, claiming their children were "misdiagnosed and rushed into transitioning." The first lawsuits against the American Academy of Pediatrics have also been filed by a child who grew up and regretted transitioning. Transgender "medicine" isn't the only practice advanced as "scientifically proven" despite the absence of evidence. Even earlier, assisted reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization and surrogacy were pushed on the public with little understanding of or concern for the safety and long-term consequences for women and children. Like transgender medicine, the line is that the "science says the kids will be fine." Don't buy it. Recently, the Heritage Foundation's Emma Waters reviewed the available evidence about some of these technologies. "Despite what many experts want you to believe," she writes, "we actually know very little about the impact of surrogacy on the long-term wellbeing of children and families." As it turns out, babies gestated by a surrogate show a marked increase in preterm births, physical defects, and low weight. This is just what we know for certain, partly because we've been kept in the dark. As Waters explains, scholars who review the literature on surrogacy typically use studies that are outdated, small, short-term, or based on self-reporting by the "parents" who paid for the children. A frequently cited U.K. study "relied on the parents' own assessment of the child's wellbeing, not objective outcomes or the child him/herself." Using that study as proof that surrogacy doesn't harm children is kind of like asking students to grade their own exams. Waters suggests two major red flags about the current research: first, studies in which "the conclusions are too squeaky clean;" and second, studies whose "self acknowledged goal" is "showing that there are no differences between same-sex, natural, and artificially conceived families and the impact … on children." In other words, these studies are advocacy, not science. Constructing better studies, Waters argues, will require tracking children over longer periods, having surrogates report their number of pregnancies, keeping tabs on who sells or donates eggs and sperm, and knowing who children born of surrogates are and who their biological parents are. As she warns, "There is a huge difference between 'no harms' and no *known* harms." Still, even without that research, there are pragmatic and moral reasons to oppose the creation of children with the intent to implant them or place them with strangers. Children were designed to know their parents. Separation from the man and woman who made them is a tragedy. Arrangements like foster care and adoption respond to that tragedy, but conceiving children with the express purpose of separating them from their parents is very different. It creates the tragedy. Similarly, paying women to carry children for nine months and then forcing them to walk away as part of a commercial transaction ignores the intimacy and sanctity of that bond, as well as its ongoing, powerful effects on both carrier and baby. Pope Francis was recently crystal clear on this one, despite his confusing and misleading statements on other serious issues. In a recent speech to diplomats, he blasted surrogacy as "deplorable," insisting it "represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child," whom it turns into "an object of trafficking." "A child," he added, "is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract." In this age of accelerating technology, and ideologues eager to wield it, the most vulnerable members of society need someone to hold so-called "experts" accountable and to ask the questions about human design, purpose, rights, and relationships that no study can answer. No matter how scientific sounding they are, claims that we can ignore God's design for sex and the family are expressions of an anti-human worldview, not objective research. And that's a very good reason to say "no" to this worldview's ongoing demand for tiny test subjects. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org _______ Don't Follow Your Heart is an incredibly important book that will help you unlock the lies behind each of the cultural lies of self-worship while also encouraging you to live with courageous faith for Christ in this cultural moment. Request your copy by giving a gift of any amount to the Colson Center this month!

John and Maria talk about the growing incidents of persecution against Christians worldwide, gender confusion, and what to make of the results of the Iowa caucus. Recommendations Finding the words to sing - WORLD The Identity Project Segment 1: Open Doors 2024 World Watch List Open Doors 2024 Watch List Highlights persecution of sub-saharan African Christians Open Doors World Watch List 2024: Trends Segment 2: Introducing the Identity Project IdentityProject.tv Segment 3: The Iowa Caucuses Trump freezes out competition in Iowa Caucuses Trump's biggest Iowa gains are in evangelical areas, smallest wins in cities A New Kind of 'evangelical'? For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Earlier this month, an image was shared on social media featuring what looked like a bit of used tissue paper with the caption, "Just a reminder that this is what an 8 week pregnancy/abortion looks like." The inference is that pro-lifers are fools or liars to call the preborn "a child." It didn't take long for that tweet to get called out. The image had been doctored. The "tissue" was not an embryo but merely an empty gestational sac. A real 8-week embryo has hands and feet, heart and head, and is very clearly a tiny human being. While the claim "it's just a clump of cells!" was questionable 50 years ago when someone first uttered it, decades of technological development make it morbidly laughable. The imagery available now completely undercuts any idea that what we see in the womb is less than human. What has been revealed is how divorced from reality the pro-abortion camp has always been. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Seven hundred years ago, Italian scholar Marsilius of Padua helped lay the foundation for our modern ideas of popular sovereignty. In his book Defensor Pacis, written in the context of an ongoing battle in Church-state relations, he anticipated the idea of separate spheres for Church and state. Though tensions over the balance of power between Church and state were probably inevitable, it took surprisingly long for them to develop. In the Roman Empire, the state regulated religious practice. Christianity was an illegal religion in the Empire for nearly 300 years, but when legalized, a precedent was set for the Church to operate separately from the state. For centuries, the two sides cooperated without much fundamental conflict. In the Latin West, questions about the relationship between Church and state arose at the end of the eighth century. In 799, Pope Leo III was accused of a variety of crimes. He appealed to Charlemagne, the king of the Franks, for judgment. Though unsure whether he had jurisdiction over the Pope, Charlemagne acquitted Leo. Since this suggested Charlemagne was over the Pope, Leo decided to redress the balance by crowning Charlemagne emperor on Christmas of 800, implying papal authority over that office. After Charlemagne, both the Church and the state suffered serious decline for nearly a century. The title of emperor fell into disuse, and the papacy descended into a period of moral degeneracy. In the late 900s, with the aid of Church reformers, the Germanic King Otto I managed to centralize enough power to be named Holy Roman Emperor. He and his successors deposed a series of corrupt popes and appointed reformers in their place. These reforming popes soon found their dependence on the emperor both theologically and politically problematic. Politically, by playing around with the rules and making deals with the emperor's enemies, they managed to loosen the papacy from imperial control. Theologically, they began to argue that as the eternal is superior to the temporal and the spiritual to the physical, the Church is superior to the state and the pope to the emperor. In effect, this meant the Church was over the state. The logic was that, since the civil government was established by God to enforce righteousness, and the pope was the vicar of Christ on Earth, he should be arbiter of what is righteous, and secular rulers must obey. If they failed to do so, the pope claimed the right to depose them, even the Holy Roman Emperor. Unsurprisingly, the Holy Roman Emperors disagreed with this logic. An early conflict was over who should name and install bishops. Since Otto I, bishops had been part of the imperial government, and emperors had insisted on their right to pick the bishops. The popes argued that bishops are primarily ecclesiastical offices and should be appointed and installed by them. This issue came to a head when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Emperor Henry IV and tried to depose him, while Henry also tried to depose Gregory and even invaded Italy to make it stick. The issue was eventually resolved by their successors. But the basic question of whether the pope was over the emperor or the emperor over the pope continued to fester, sometimes resulting in war, excommunications, and the appointment of anti-popes. In the context of these conflicts, Marsilius of Padua wrote his book. He took the imperial side, arguing that the Church had no jurisdiction in secular matters. It should interpret Scripture and define dogma, while secular affairs were the responsibility of the civil government, whose members were to be elected or appointed by the most important citizens. In the same way, he believed that clergy, including the pope, should be elected by the people or their representatives. Even within the Church, papal authority was limited since supreme authority was vested in Church councils called by the emperor. Marsilius also argued that tithes should be eliminated, Church property should be seized by the government, and clergy should live in holy poverty. Marsilius's work was supported by prominent Franciscans, including William of Ockham, who championed the ideal of apostolic poverty, and was later promoted by Thomas Cromwell to support Henry VIII during the English Reformation. Defensor Pacis was an important step in advancing ideas of popular sovereignty and democracy, though it implicitly supported imperial authority. Despite its anticlericalism, it made important contributions to ideas about the proper relationship between Church and state. Given current debates about Christendom and Christian Nationalism, studying historical works like Defensor Pacis could enrich our understanding of the place of the Church in civil society. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

University of Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh was barely in the locker room after his team's victory in this year's National Championship before reporters were pointing out his 11 million dollar paycheck. While the controversy over what college football coaches make isn't going away any time soon, the University of Michigan also pays 30 million dollars to nearly 250 employees in its various diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. DEI staffing is a major industry, especially at universities, often with vague, unmeasurable goals. Efforts tend to focus on hiring practices, devolving into racial quotas and quickly elevating sexual minorities above everything else. And, they typically don't work. The University of Michigan, as a state school, is funded by taxpayers. Change means wading through a lot of bureaucracy. It takes time, strategy, and political courage, but it can be done. If Americans want their universities to prioritize education over ideology, we should remember that we hold their purse strings. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

To see this What Would You Say? video in its entirety and to share it with others, go to whatwouldyousay.org. Or, you can look up the What Would You Say? channel on YouTube. Be sure to subscribe to be notified each time a new video is released. _________ Among the unexpected stories of 2023 was a renewed interest in all things extraterrestrial: from images of alien corpses; to retired high-ranking military officials claiming secret government programs launched to capture UFOs; to a strange encounter with Las Vegas police officers. The public interest in whether there's anything out there is as high as ever. But what would the existence of alien life mean for Christianity? That's the question tackled in a brand new video, part of the What Would You Say? series, called "What Does the Bible Say About Aliens?" Many people assume that if any evidence were to be discovered for extraterrestrial life, it would be devastating to the Christian worldview. However, according to my colleague, Shane Morris, that's not necessarily the case. In fact, according to Shane, "There's nothing in the Christian view of the world that excludes the possibility that God created life on other planets." In this video, Shane offers three things to keep in mind. First, that "despite the hype of science fiction and decades of searching, there is currently no evidence for life on other planets." "[A]fter decades of looking and listening and exploring the heavens for that life, we've come up empty-handed. So much so, in fact, that physicists and astronomers have named the emptiness the Fermi Paradox, which refers to 'the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence.' In other words, if life happens easily, 'Where is everybody?' [Peter] Ward and his co-author, Donald Brownlee, argue in Rare Earth that life doesn't happen that easily, and assuming that it does is the real mistake. At least a dozen special conditions found on our planet are probably necessary for the existence of intelligent life, including a precise orbital distance from our star, heavy elements, liquid water, a moon, a magnetic field, not too much gravity, a nearby gas giant, and having a star like our Sun, which, as it turns out, is anything but 'ordinary.'" Shane's second point is that "even if intelligent life were found elsewhere in the universe, it wouldn't necessarily present a problem for Christianity." "Before Star Trek or Star Wars existed, C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy. In it, he famously imagined alien races that never fell into sin. And in a few essays, Lewis wrestled with whether the existence of real-life extraterrestrials would threaten Christianity. According to Lewis, the Bible never says God created the vast cosmos only for humans. … For Lewis, intelligent aliens created and loved by God posed no problem, nor would they contradict the Bible. In the same essay, he cautioned that the Bible was not intended to satisfy our curiosity about such things but as an instruction manual for salvation. But he also warned that humans are in no position to tell God what He can and cannot do with His vast universe." And finally, Shane states that "the Bible teaches that there are other beings in the universe, but they're not what materialists expect, and they do not always come in peace." "Some biblical scholars, like the late Dr. Michael Heiser, have suggested that some alleged alien encounters may be the result of demonic activity and possession. After all, in 2 Corinthians 11:14 Paul warned that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. This means that Christians need not believe every story of alien abductions or close encounters, but we need not immediately dismiss them as jokes or conspiracy theories. Christianity teaches that we are not alone in the universe, that it is full of intelligent entities, both good and evil, and that all were created by and remain under the power of God. The existence of extraterrestrial life is still speculation, but the Christian worldview has more room for mysteries than our secular, materialist age does. It offers a bigger, more thorough, and more satisfying explanation for the universe." That was Shane Morris answering the question "What Does the Bible Say About Aliens?" To see the whole video and to share it with others, go to whatwouldyousay.org. Or, you can look up the What Would You Say? channel on YouTube. Be sure to subscribe to be notified each time a new video is released. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. ______ As a Breakpoint listener, you probably pick up on how the daily commentaries do the work of translation for you. We take a story or issue being discussed in our culture right now and model how to think through it from a Christian worldview. But, if you're interested in going deeper, in discovering how to develop the wisdom and skills needed to walk wisely in this cultural moment, then the Colson Fellows program might be for you. This ten-month program combines theological, spiritual, and worldview formation through a carefully curated combination of readings, daily devotions, live webinars, and monthly meetings with your peers. With both in-person and fully online offerings, you can choose the format that works best with your stage in life. Interested in learning more? You can explore the program and submit an application at colsonfellows.org. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

An unsung hero of the twentieth century was Sir Nicholas Winton. Winton secured visas to Britain for 700 mostly Jewish children in the late 1930s, saving them from being victims of the Nazi Holocaust. For decades, Winton's work went unnoticed for the simple fact that he didn't tell anyone. Decades later his secret was discovered and revealed to the world. In fact, there's an actual video clip online of the then-grown children thanking Winton. Now, a new movie to be released later this year, starring Anthony Hopkins, tells the story. Yet, all the early press releases and a number of articles fail to mention that the children who were saved were Jews, either ignoring that detail entirely or calling them "Central European." The children weren't in danger because of where they lived. They were in danger because of who they were. Whether because of antisemitism or a seeking not to offend, erasing Jews from a story about the Holocaust is itself evil. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Last week on NBC's Meet the Press, Joe Biden's deputy campaign manager, Quentin Fulks, was asked what the president's top priority would be if reelected. His reply: "First of all: Roe. … The president has been adamant that we need to restore Roe. It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago." According to Politico, President Biden's pro-choice agenda is "the strongest abortion rights platform of any general election candidate," and the president seems to sense that this is among the very few issues trending in his favor. Of a recent Texas Supreme Court case in which a woman was denied a medical exception for an abortion, the president declared: "No woman should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs. … This should never happen in America, period." Judging by the string of pro-life legislative defeats, most recently in the otherwise red Ohio and Virginia, many Americans agree with the president. One Politico analysis concluded, "When abortion rights are on the ballot, they win with voters across the political spectrum—though they don't always boost Democratic candidates on ballots advocating for them." In an imminent presidential election that promises to be especially contentious, the received wisdom among progressive candidates is this: Vow to preserve, at all costs, the so-called "right to choose," and it's likely that voters will choose me. Of course, this reveals as much about the rest of the progressive agenda as it does about "reproductive rights." Immigration and the southern border? Ukraine and Israel? Housing prices? Inflation? LGBTQ issues? The mental health crisis? These pressing issues are political liabilities for the president right now, so all the attention is on abortion. It is more than a little ironic to see the heightened emphasis on abortion, considering how often Christians were accused of being "one-issue" voters. Post-Roe, left-wing politicians are forced to be more honest about abortion's central role in their political project. And make no mistake, abortion is central not only to a progressive political agenda, but to the vision of "freedom" and selfhood this agenda has enshrined in American law and culture. In so many ways, abortion symbolizes the worldview in which autonomy and self-expression are the highest possible values. It's the logical endpoint of the pursuit of freedom from constraints, devoid of any notion of freedom for a created purpose. In this view, connections to other human beings—including the most intimate and dependent connection of all—are only worthwhile insofar as they help citizens achieve that vision of limitless autonomy. If such connections get in the way of our freedoms, we should be free to sever them, no matter who suffers. This deadly logic has become increasingly obvious in recent years as imaging technology in neo-natal care has made the humanity of preborn babies undeniable. Quite a few pro-abortion activists have responded by swallowing the proverbial poison pill and giving up on pretending children in the womb are "clumps of cells." So what if they're human? These activists retort. Their death is an acceptable price for women to maintain absolute control over their own bodies and futures! If our vision of freedom requires people to die, so be it. Still, abortion is heavily restricted or banned in 24 states, mostly as a direct result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, and there are a few hopeful signs that the public hasn't fully bought the logic of the extreme activists. For example, pro-abortion candidates, at least on the national level, still feel the need to pretend they find abortion distasteful. Last year, President Biden prefaced his support of abortion by saying, "I'm a practicing Catholic. I'm not big on abortion." Also, abortion is still typically defended in public, not as an absolute, on-demand right, but as a necessary accommodation in sad but rare circumstances like rape, incest, and the life of the mother. These "wedge" arguments are deeply flawed and do not change the fact that intentionally taking an innocent human life is always wrong. However, their continued use indicates that Americans aren't quite ready to stomach the unrestricted killing of little people we find inconvenient. Ultimately, the pro-life argument remains unchanged. The preborn are innocent human beings, made in God's image, and no one should be able to take their lives without cause. In fact, the most basic purpose of government is to protect its citizens' right to life, and if the government fails to do this, it is failing in the most basic way. Simply put, if killing babies in the womb is not wrong, the very concept of "rights" is a joke. The president's eagerness to make abortion his top reelection priority is deeply significant, and it would be a mistake to dismiss the statement as mere politics. This issue has taken on symbolic, moral, and spiritual weight for our nation, and it will continue to be a bitterly fought battleground. Despite setbacks and disappointments, we can agree with the president on one thing. De-prioritizing this issue is not an option. The stakes—for our society and its most vulnerable members—are simply too high. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org