Breakpoint

Back in 2016, Steve Tennes, owner of Country Mill Farms, posted on Facebook that because of their deeply held religious beliefs about marriage, the farm would continue to host weddings, but only between a man and a woman. In response, the city of East Lansing, Michigan, passed a regulation to prevent Country Mill Farms from participating in its farmer's market. This despite the fact that the Tenneses had participated for over five years without complaints. The Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit on their behalf. According to the judge's opinion, the city's policy was "veiled cover for targeting belief or a faith-based practice." Last week, the city of East Lansing agreed to settle and pay $825,000 to Country Mill Farms. According to the ADF press release, "as part of the settlement agreement, the city of East Lansing agreed that Tennes is free to continue running his business in accord with his religious beliefs about marriage without jeopardizing his ability to participate in the city's farmer's market." This is great news for people of conscience. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In December 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified by the United States. Though these 10 amendments to the Constitution are rarely mentioned after high school civics class, recent events here and abroad offer a glimpse of life without those rights and a reminder why they are so important as a defense against ideological overreach. If a proposed new law passes the legislative process in Ireland, the famous Irish gift of gab will require government approval. As Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom recently noted in Newsweek, this potential restriction is, at best, vague. Even though it targets "hate," it never defines what "hate" is. As she put it, "How is the public to know what kind of speech could be subject to prosecution? Given that "hate" is an impossible word to define in law (and is not defined in this bill), this paves the way for basically any expression considered unfavorable to be prosecuted in the future." Vagueness in a national law is, in practice, an open invitation for state-based abuse, yet that is not this particular law's only problem. If it goes forward, refusing to give the police your password if they have a search warrant will be treated as a crime, and merely possessing material that "is likely to incite violence or hatred" might get you two years in jail. In other words, according to this proposed law, a crime doesn't even have to involve actually hating anyone or saying something that could be hateful. Anything that the powers-that-be think could possibly be interpreted as hateful would be sufficient. It's no wonder Waggoner added, "[I]t's not hard to imagine Ireland rapidly descending into an authoritarian state with the passage of this law." Back in June, Pauline O'Reilly of the Green Party defended the proposed law with a line directly out of the totalitarian playbook: "We are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good." This would include curtailing rights guaranteed in the Irish constitution "if people's views on others cause them deep discomfort." Again, under this view, no crime has to be committed, if someone is caused "deep discomfort." This kind of scrutiny will, of course, target some and not others. To paraphrase George Orwell's great line from Animal Farm, all discomfort is equally wrong, but some are more equal than others. The way this inverted logic most often plays out is by the argument that not all speech is protected speech. Typically, this reasoning is followed by the necessary caveat, "After all, you can't yell fire in a theater!" This logical-sounding and necessary exception, however, becomes less exceptional when it is applied to more and more speech that a select few deem dangerous. In practice, at least in the United States, appeals to burning theaters have rarely, if ever, held up in court. As Jeff Kosseff notes in his new book Liar in a Crowded Theater, "[O]ne reason that a wider swath of false speech does not fall within an exception to the First Amendment is because regulation is simply not terribly effective at achieving the government's goals." The First Amendment has, so far, been an effective barrier against unnecessary limits on freedoms, even when done "for our good." On the other hand, situations in European countries that lack anything like our First Amendment, not to mention the selective censorship at America's elite universities, expose how much can go wrong when there's nothing to limit the people in power from acting for our own good. As C. S. Lewis put it in God in the Dock: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." The reason that the speech protections of the First Amendment, with its guarantees of liberty of conscience, do not exclude speech that is merely offensive is that inoffensive speech doesn't need protection. By allowing potentially and even truly wrong things to be said, the Bill of Rights ensures space for the truth to be heard, and for those committed to truth to make the case for it. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy Padgett. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

On Monday, a document released by the Vatican doctrine office announced what the Associated Press called "a radical change in Vatican policy." In it, Pope Francis formally approved allowing priests to bless same-sex couples as long as it was not done "liturgically" nor could otherwise be confused with the Sacrament of Marriage. If he hoped to avoid confusion, he failed. Confusion is, unfortunately, a standard part of Francis' tenure, who tends to lead and speak in ways less than clear. In fact, the announcement took the same two approaches that have long characterized moves made to liberalize Christianity to a progressive vision of sexuality and marriage. The first approach is to separate doctrine from love, as if clarity on a doctrinal point is incompatible with love of God and love of others. The second approach is to separate doctrine from pastoral practice, as if telling the truth about something core to who we are as human beings isn't one of the most important aspects of pastoring. This kind of confusion never comes from God. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Nearly a year after COVID shutdowns began in the United States, the ABC affiliate in San Francisco ran this headline: "Private schools opening in-person where public schools aren't." In February 2021, while the majority of private schools in California were back in-person, most public schools were still "distance learning." Around the same time, the public health department in Toledo, Ohio, had ordered all schools back to distance learning for the winter. Local gyms, offices, and casinos were allowed to stay open. In response, a small private Christian school sued. The 6th Circuit decided in their favor, and the school stayed open while every public school in the area remained closed. Stories like this repeated all over the country from the fall of 2020 through the end of the pandemic. Public schools, under the direction of teachers' unions and, at times, overzealous public officials, stayed closed for weeks, months, and, in some cases, years longer than private schools. Now, the results are in from these experiments, and the data show a devastating effect on kids. Last month, The New York Times editorial board wrote that "The Startling Evidence on Learning Loss Is In." According to the piece, school closures set math and reading scores among 9-year-old students back by at least 20 years. "The challenges have been compounded by an epidemic of absenteeism," the editors wrote, "as students who grew accustomed to missing school during the pandemic continue to do so after the resumption of in-person classes." Tragically, too many public officials were taken in by the narrative that to contract COVID, even for kids at low risk for serious infection, was more dangerous than two decades' worth of learning loss. Unfortunately, kids are now paying the price. And as this generation of kids gets older, society will pay the price, too. The fact that so-called "distance learning" was mostly "no learning" says a lot about the kind of creatures human beings are. Kids, like all humans, are embodied beings, which makes being physically together with others a categorically different thing than only seeing faces on a screen. God made us for relationships. As helpful as computers and phones are, they are not substitutes for real people. In short, technology can enhance learning, but even the most sophisticated technologies should not shape learning. The data on COVID-era learning loss reveals something else about children. The terrible numbers were not nearly as terrible for kids with heavily engaged parents. This played out in multiple ways. In the cases of schools that reopened much earlier than others, it was often parents pushing local officials. For kids forced into prolonged distance learning, those with parents who made sure they showed up to Zoom class and helped with homework did best overall. Of course, the importance of parental engagement in education was another condition that pre-existed COVID. Still, data from before, during, and after the pandemic show that parents are the single most important factor in the education of a child and a healthy home the most important ingredient for a successful life. This is a remarkable opportunity for Christians. The Church has always cared about kids, and the Church has always cared about education. The state-centric way of trying to prepare a new generation of citizens is not fulfilling its promise. Thankfully, there are many Christians dedicated to serving kids as best they can in and out of public schools. Others are innovating new ways to do school, including starting Christian schools inside church buildings in struggling communities. Others are advocating for school choice so that every family can afford to send their kids to schools that will serve them best. And others are working to provide resources and opportunities for those kids who remain within the public system. This is why the Colson Center has doubled down on our investment in Christians who are called to the realm of education. To this end, we have developed resources to form teachers in a Christian worldview and help them apply it to their work. Find out more and access the free training resources at educators.colsoncenter.org. To support this work and resource more educators with a Christian worldview, give at colsoncenter.org/december. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case about chemical abortion. The case will consider whether certain regulations for the so-called "abortion pill" (which is really a two-pill regimen) should have been jettisoned in 2021 when, using COVID as cover, the FDA removed the requirement of an in-person consultation before issuing a prescription. Chemical abortions are now accessed by mail and telemedicine across state lines. Unfortunately, the case won't consider the FDA's original approval of chemical abortion, which was rushed through two decades ago without adequate consideration of the risk to women. Now, without the supervision of a medical professional, the risk to women is even greater. In fact, chemical abortions carry a complication rate four times higher than surgical abortion. Of course, there are no safe abortions anyway. Every "successful" abortion always results in the loss of life. Abortion by mail only makes both the vulnerable and the guilty less accountable for a terrible decision. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In the beloved movie The Princess Bride the character Vizzini frequently cries, "inconceivable!" about things that keep happening. Finally, another character observes, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." That scene comes to mind annually, when Merriam-Webster Dictionary announces its "word of the year." The announcement is intended to recognize words that have defined our cultural moment. In recent years, it has recognized words our cultural moment has redefined. For example, last year's word "gaslighting" describes unhealthy behavior in which someone tries to manipulate you into questioning your sanity. However, like the word "toxic" before it, "gaslighting" is now a catch-all term used by some to shut down pretty much anyone who disagrees with them. "They" was the 2019 word of the year, which, in ordinary English, is a third-person plural pronoun. In today's Newspeak, it's a mandatory way of referring to someone who claims to be "nonbinary," also a redefined word. This year's word is "authentic," which the dictionary defines as "not false or imitation: real, actual," or "worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact." However, the context in which this word is most frequently and passionately used is the debate over gender identity, as in "be your authentic self." So, it now refers to anything but reality or conformity to fact. To be "authentic" in 2023 often means stubbornly ignoring fact, hormonally masking or surgically reconstructing fact, and demanding that others also ignore fact, even in classrooms, competitions, locker rooms, and in print. In short, "authenticity" now means conformity with subjective internal feelings that are widely assumed to be the defining feature of individuals and the highest value in society. Theologian Carl Trueman documented how we got to this place—how the self became psychologized, how psychology became sexualized, and how sex became politicized—in his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. This new definition of "authenticity" is part of that story—that living a fulfilling life consists primarily in looking within, discovering who you "truly are," and then projecting that identity into the world. These are all central to his account. Trueman explains: "Expressive individualism particularly refers to the idea that in order to be fulfilled, in order to be an authentic person, in order to be genuinely me, I need to be able to express outwardly or perform publicly that which I feel I am inside. … In a society where the expressive individual is increasingly the norm and increasingly presented as that which we should all be, then the idea of society itself forcing us to play a role that we don't feel comfortable with inside makes us inauthentic." This new definition of "authentic," that what I feel inside is the highest truth, would have baffled people in centuries past and still baffles many non-Westerners today. However, the real problem is that this new definition of "authentic" is utter nonsense. Truth is not primarily subjective but objective. Reality is not decided by individuals but given by a Creator. One of the things our Creator both demands of us and enables us to do through redemption is conform our inner selves to His will and design, which He reveals, objectively, in both creation and Scripture. To be authentically me is to be who God says I am. Our identity is established by, guaranteed by, and secured in Jesus Christ. Even more important than getting words right is pointing to the reality to which words refer and are permanently tethered. Words become nonsense otherwise, and that should make this practice of redefining words truly "inconceivable." Before I sign off today, I wanted to say thank you for making Breakpoint a part of your Christian worldview diet. Everywhere I travel, I meet listeners who share how these daily doses of clarity help them think biblically, have hard conversations, and disciple their kids and grandkids. If Breakpoint has been a help to you and your family, please consider making a year-end gift of support at colsoncenter.org/give. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A listener recently asked how to respond to the accusation that Christians are not free thinkers. One way is to go over the list of novelists, artists, scientists, and philosophers from the last two millennia and see how many of them were Christians or worked from a broadly Christian framework. Consider also how much art over the past 20 centuries can be called "sacred." Read Augustine of Hippo or Jonathan Edwards and see if they qualify as free thinkers. Learn about the lives of scientists like Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Galileo and others. And then look up how much science advanced before Christian civilization. Christians believe the world is knowable and that, made in God's image, we are knowers. There is no thinking without that basis. And then you need to be clear about the word "free." Historically, that meant the freedom to do whatever he or she wanted to do. Those people rarely made the world better. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Many Christians are familiar with the beautiful and tender words of the medieval theologian Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) in the hymns "O Sacred Head Now Wounded," "Jesus the Very Thought of Thee," and "Jesus, Thou Joy of Loving Hearts." Like other Church Fathers, he also preached on the topics of Advent and Christmas and had rich words to share. As well as a theologian, Bernard was a Church reformer, mystic, and abbot of the Cistercian monastery at Clairvaux. He played important roles in both ecclesiastical and secular politics, particularly as a preacher of the Second Crusade. Because of his eloquence and his emphasis on divine love, Dante made him his final guide of Paradise in his Divine Comedy. He was also cited by major Protestant Reformers such as Luther and Calvin as supporting justification by faith. Although Bernard is known for holding a very high view of Mary, the overall focus of his Sermon 9 on the Nativity remains squarely on Jesus. It was built around a repeated refrain: "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is born in Bethlehem of Judah." In the first part of the sermon, Bernard emphasized the absolute wonder of this proclamation: A voice of gladness has resounded in our land. In the dwellings of sinners a voice of joy and salvation has been heard. The good news has been announced, news of comfort, news of rejoicing, worthy of all acceptance. Rejoice and give praise, O you mountains. All you trees of the forest applaud before the face of the Lord, for now he is coming. Hear, you heavens; and you, earth, give ear. Let the whole of creation be astounded and give praise; but you, O humans, above all others. For "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is born in Bethlehem of Judah." Bernard described this news as the sweetest, the most delightful, and the best to ever come to Earth. Words were inadequate, he said, to express the love that wells up in his heart at the beauty of the message. He then explained that every word in the sentence is full of meaning. The name "Jesus" points to Him as the source of salvation. The title "Christ" points to His anointing and the healing unction He provides. The title "Son of God" points to His greatness and the gifts He gives. Bernard continued: Take courage, you who are lost, for to seek and save that which was lost Jesus now comes. Return to health, you who are sick, for with the ointment of mercy Christ comes to heal the contrite of heart. Rejoice all you who are ambitious for great things, for the Son of God descends on you to make you co-heirs of his own kingdom. … Why has the Son of God become Man but in order to make all men sons of God? Who, then, will resist his will? Jesus forgives us: who then will condemn us? Christ heals us: who will hurt us? The Son of God raises us up: who will put us down? Jesus is born: let the person whose sinful conscience deserves eternal damnation rejoice, for Jesus' pity exceeds all crimes, no matter how great their number or enormity. Christ is born: therefore, let the person who is tormented by deeply rooted vices rejoice. For no spiritual illness, no matter how chronic, can stand its ground before Christ's healing ointment. The Son of God is born: let him whose habit is to desire great things rejoice, for the giver of great things is at hand. Then Bernard explained "in Bethlehem of Judah." Bethlehem means "house of bread," and so we need to receive the food that comes from heaven in Scripture and in Christ, the Bread of Life. He noted that Jesus could have been born in a palace, but instead chose a small, poor village, because the only commodity absent in heaven and abundant on Earth is poverty. Citing Genesis 49, Bernard defined "Judah" as "confession," concluding that we need to become like Bethlehem in Judah, receiving Jesus by faith and confessing Him with our mouth so that we may be saved. Bernard's sermon reminds us how easy it is to miss the astonishing wonder of all that the Incarnation means. So, to celebrate Christ's birth, we must intentionally take the time to ponder the wonder of it, rejoice in it, and respond in faith to all that God has done for us. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

John Stonestreet and Maria Baer discuss prenatal genetic testing and Trisomy 18 after a Texas woman's request for an abortion was denied by the Texas Supreme Court. Also, Rob Reiner is releasing a negative documentary on Christian Nationalism, and SCOTUS will hear a challenge on access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Recommendations Colson Center National Conference Segment 1: Prenatal Genetic Testing and the Texas Abortion Case "TX Supreme Court Rules Woman Can't Get In-State Abortion" "5 Things to know about the latest abortion case in Texas" Segment 2: New Documentary on "Christian Nationalism" "Rob Reiner Takes on Christian Nationalism Threat in "God and Country" Trailer" "Rob Reiner is deluded about 'Christian Nationalism'" Segment 3: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Abortion Drug Access "Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Case on abortion drug access" "Appeals Court Rules FDA Must Restore Safeguards for Chemical Abortion Drugs" For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

According to conservative commentator Ann Coulter, the pro-life movement "has gone from compassion for the child to cruelty to the mother (and child). Trisomy 18 is not a condition that is compatible with life." She was referring to a Texas Supreme Court decision rejecting a woman's request for an abortion on the basis of a health exception. Trisomy 18 is a genetic disorder of which 50% of babies die within their first week of life and 90-95% don't survive after one year. But this shows why phrases like "incompatible with life" are so problematic. Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum responded to Coulter with a photo of his daughter Bella, who has Trisomy 18, and is now 15 years old. Trisomy 18 does not risk the life of the mom. And Trisomy 18 does not make a baby less human, and therefore no less valuable. But adopting language like "incompatible with life" will make doing the right thing far less likely. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org