Breakpoint

John and Maria discuss the high and low points in the GOP presidential debate. A growing number of states are telling Christians they can’t be foster parents and reaction to the song "Rich Men North of Richmond."    — Recommendations — The Making of Another Major Motion Picture Masterpiece by Tom Hanks Get your copy of Live Your Truth & Other Lies Section 1 - Worldview takeaways from the GOP Debate  "Mike Pence, Nikki Haley Spar Over Federal Abortion Ban at RNC Debate" "GOP Candidates Clash Over National Abortion Ban"  "Conservatives Praise Ramaswamy’s Mention of Fatherless Epidemic" "Trump-Less Debate Draws Better-than-Expected 12.8 Million Viewers" "People forgot how to act in public" Section 2 - The War on Christians "Denver Archdiocese sues Colorado over right to deny preschool to LGBTQ families" "California Public Library Silences Female Athlete" "Librarian shuts down event after speaker refers to ‘transgender’ athletes as male" "Christian mother sues state for denying adoption over her gender beliefs" "Federal lawsuit alleges religious exemption denial for Buena Vista preschool unconstitutional" Section 3 - Rich Men North of Richmond "It’s Not Condescending to Speak the Truth" "The rise of Oliver Anthony and ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’" For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

According to The Daily Mail, the Biden administration’s health secretary recently endorsed a gender clinic in Alaska. The secretary is a man who identifies as a woman. The clinic advocates for replacing the term “mother” with “egg producer.”   Somehow “Happy Egg Producer Day!” doesn’t have the same ring to it as “Mother’s Day.” As a colleague of mine noted when she heard the story, “That really is The Handmaid’s Tale.”   Language matters. Especially from people who occupy positions of cultural power, from the media who call this man a “she,” to politicians who claim he is a powerful woman, to a clinic obscuring reality. When they detach from reality, incoherent and dangerous ideas like this are the result.  Reality, however, has hard edges, and neither our bad ideas nor our bad language can change that. The farther afield from reason and science our cultural elites wander, the more revolutionary it will be to say what is true.   For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Last month, an article published on NBC described “[p]ractitioners of ‘race change to another,’ or RCTA,” which refers to people who “purport to be able to manifest physical changes in their appearance and even their genetics to truly become a different race.” Interviewed for the article were teenagers who are enamored with Japanese and Korean cultures and who have become convinced that, by listening to subliminal messages while they sleep, they will eventually wake up with Asian characteristics, such as eyes with an epicanthic fold.   Even more unbelievable than the idea that subliminal messaging can alter a person’s genetics was the attempt at ethical analysis by journalist Emi Tuyetnhi Tran. According to Tran, RCTA is wrong, but not because those with the delusion entertain desires that will never become reality. Instead, RCTA is wrong because of inequality:   "Experts agree  race is not genetic. But they contend that even though race is a cultural construct, it is impossible to change your race because of the systemic inequalities inherent to being born into a certain race." In other words, young people with this particular identity crisis should not be told what they desire is impossible due to the constraints of physical reality, but that they are violating certain social theories. What Tran fails to explain is that if race is merely a social construct as gender is now understood to be, why is appropriating a different gender identity acceptable but not a different racial identity? On what grounds should we, for example, oppose the actions of someone like Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who became leader of a local NAACP chapter?   In fact, though there are physical distinctions between races, the physical differences between the sexes are far more profound. Nineteenth-century ideas of divinely ordained, distinct races that ought not be “mixed” was rooted in dangerous, racist nonsense that can neither be supported biblically or biologically. The differences that are emphasized are typical generalizations more closely related to cultural differences than anything essential. However, people have tended to tie these assumptions to racial categories.   The biblical account, in contrast, describes a single human race that was created by God to bear His image before the rest of His creation. The different “tongues, tribes, nations, and languages” arose when God dispersed Noah’s descendants, spreading humans across the Earth to fulfill their purpose. Thus, the biblical narrative grounds and explains both the universal dignity and value that all humans possess, as well as their physical, cultural, and genetic differences. Race is too narrow a concept to explain these differences. It is best understood, as apologists Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer explain in their forthcoming book Critical Dilemma, as a social construct (though not all differences can be attributed to social construction).  Genetic variances among people are significant enough to produce observable physical differences. For example, different races demonstrate specific predilections toward different kinds of cancer. Even if a few confused teenagers believe that epicanthic folds are only a social construct and not genetic, that doesn’t change reality. What becomes obvious in Tran’s article is that acknowledging these realities without violating our society’s “new rules” requires quite a bit of intellectual gymnastics. For example, one article cited by Tran suggests that genetic variation among humans should be understood wholly differently than the concept of race. A Ph.D. candidate at Harvard Medical School suggests the use of “ancestry” language instead of “race” language. This quickly feels like a word game, especially when the only ones allowed to use the word “race” are those who lob accusations of racial supremacy.  The more fundamental problem–the one at the root of this and every one of the many identity crises infecting our cultural moment–is that so many young people have absorbed a way of thinking about themselves and reality best identified as “expressive individualism.” For years, they’ve heard that the world is whatever they decide and make of it, that their bodies are plastic and do not govern who or what they are, and that what is most true about themselves and the world is how they feel on the inside. Why wouldn’t they assume that one day they could wake up with the eyelids they really, really want?  An overwhelming identity crisis among young people is also a clear indicator of what the Church is being called to in this time and this place. Testifying to the work of Christ in the world, which is always the calling of the Christ-follower, must include testifying to the work of Christ in creation. John 1 and Colossians 1 are clear: Christ was present and at work in the creation chapter of God’s story. Proclaiming the Good News today must involve pointing to God’s good design of human beings, how He created them in His image. That must include theological instruction about the human body, especially in the wake of a dramatic increase in depression and anxiety among teens and of a growing number of “detransitioners” dealing with regret and facing the long-term harm of our culture’s worst ideas.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Heather Peterson.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Sixteenth-century French theologians do not usually make an appearance in twenty-first century political press conferences. But earlier this August, Governor Ron DeSantis introduced Andrew Bain as a new Florida state attorney. After briefly thanking the governor and those who’d helped him get to this point, Bain said, “For me, this is the place where John Calvin’s second purpose of the law came to life.” He then summarized Calvin’s idea, that the law is a restraint on evil. Though it cannot, in and of itself, change people’s hearts, it can protect the righteous from the unjust.  T.S. Eliot noted that our theories of education say something about our views about culture and humanity. So do our ideas about the law. Too many politicians act as if passing a law will remake the human condition. It won’t, which is why it’s refreshing to see a public servant grounded in better ideas.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A recent article in The Atlantic by Helen Lewis made the bold claim that “The Gender War Is Over in Britain.” An overstatement, to be sure, but not entirely unwarranted. Keir Starmer, head of the Labour Party, recently led his party away from full support of radical gender ideology. This was a notable shift for the United Kingdom’s largest left-wing party, which had previously encouraged radical elements of trans activism and stood aside as feminists were canceled for resisting the new orthodoxy. The shift, which was quietly announced to the public, made “three big declarations.”   One was that “sex and gender are different.” Another was that, although Labour continues to believe in the right to change one’s legal gender, safeguards are needed to “protect women and girls from predators who might abuse the system.” Finally, Labour was therefore dropping its commitment to self-ID—the idea that a simple online declaration is enough to change someone’s legal gender for all purposes—and would retain the current requirement of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.  The author of the Atlantic piece equated Starmer’s muted approach to “a man who had chucked a hand grenade over his shoulder and walked away, whistling,” though it likely had more to do with strategy than anything else. Although it may be the cause du jour of ivory tower activists, the past few years of policies and platforms at odds with common sense and basic biology have left affirming politicians high and dry when it comes to public support.  Some have already paid the price by losing their respective offices. Recently, the head of the Scottish Nationalist Party was toppled, in part, for her attempted defense of placing so-called transgender men in women’s prisons. And it’s not just politicians who are getting the boot. Last year, the Tavistock Clinic near London shut down operations on account of lawsuits against its “gender-affirming” practices. In fact, the greater trend across Europe seems to be a growing skepticism, which stands in stark contrast to the mood in North America.   At the same time, the protest in the U.S. seems to be growing. More stage time and prominence are being given to “de-transitioners” like Chloe Cole, who, as young people, bought the lies and did irreparable damage to their bodies through amputation and chemicals. More female athletes are following the lead of Riley Gaines and the Connecticut high school sprinters, standing up to intimidation and threats and insisting on the “crazy” idea that only women should be in women’s sports. As more people refuse to be muzzled by societal pressure, others will speak out, too. Only in this way will what is true about reality reassert itself.  All these things should give us hope that societal decline is not inevitable. But we must also remember that social media isn’t real. Most of the controversies that monopolize the time and attention of pundits around the world are just “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Most people around the country and the world are more firmly rooted in reality than the folks writing headlines, pushing progressive policies, and posting TikTok videos.   One complicating factor here is that American politics is uniquely polarized. For example, in post-Roe v. Wade America, the American left has elevated abortion to the point that no compromise is tolerated. So, even though many European nations have far stricter laws regarding abortion than even conservative American states, it will take significant effort to further move the needle here in the U.S. The same reality is at play in our efforts to protect children who are already born.  What can and should continue to encourage us is that reality will always strike back. Dangerous ideas, even when mandated by cultural gatekeepers, cannot change reality. When Christians and other likeminded people stand up against dangerous ideas, we’re not pleading for our own narrow, partisan claims. We’re standing for the reality of the world as it truly is. We’re standing for science and fact, for basic biology and common sense. No matter the folly of human pretensions against reality, this is still our Father’s world. Its boundaries can only be pushed so far.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy Padgett.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A recent tweet featured a clip of a sermon on Psalm 139. In that Psalm, David famously declares, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” The preacher applied the passage to the place of abortion in our culture, noting that abortion is a subject that makes people feel uncomfortable and has been politicized to the detriment of society.  So far, so good.   Then the pastor, wearing vestments emblazoned with Planned Parenthood’s insignia, went on to celebrate abortion, complaining about harmful messaging from pro-lifers and the Church’s “failure” to uphold Roe v. Wade’s abortion regime.   She then claimed that she felt “no guilt, no shame, no sin” for her own two abortions.  A seared conscience is far worse than a guilty one. The Church has failed on the issue of abortion, but the failure is that anyone could enter a pew, much less the pulpit, and still think that God considers abortion anything less than an abomination. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org  

In The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche tells “The Parable of the Madman.” In it, a madman lights a lantern in the early morning, runs to the marketplace, and declares, “God is dead.” Nietzsche’s point was that though Enlightenment philosophers had embraced atheism, they had not yet realized the huge implications. So, Nietzsche told them, via a rant from the Madman, which ends when he bursts into church buildings and asks, “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”  In 2023 in America, that last question feels uncomfortably relevant, even for those of us who know God is alive and well. U.S. church membership, as a percentage of the population, is now at a record low—down more than 20 points in the twenty-first century.   For years, this statistic could be attributed mostly to the decline of mainline Protestantism, a once dominant force in American life that is now a kind of hospice for graying liberal theology. However, recent news that the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination, lost half a million members last year makes clear that decline is no longer just a mainline problem.   Evangelicals, as a share of the population, have sunk to pre-1980s levels while the religiously unaffiliated have swelled to nearly a third of the population. Ryan Burge, a statistician and co-author of a forthcoming book entitled The Great Dechurching, calls the emptying of pews and the rise of the unaffiliated “the most significant shift in American society over the last thirty years.”  It is significant for reasons most Americans probably don’t yet realize. Like the people in Nietzsche’s parable, secular observers may shrug off or even celebrate America’s “great dechurching.” But a less religiously observant society is, statistically, a much worse place to live. As Jake Meador wrote in his review of The Great Dechurching at The Atlantic, this change is “bad news” for America as a whole, because,   "Participation in a religious community generally correlates with better health outcomes and longer life, higher financial generosity, and  more stable families—all of which are desperately needed in a nation with rising rates of loneliness, mental illness, and alcohol and drug dependency."  Faith, particularly Christian faith, is an irreplaceable force for good in society. Its decline will leave America less healthy, less charitable, less connected, and less capable of dealing with major social ills without government intervention. Evidence suggests it already has.  At the same time, it is essential to remember that these benefits are byproducts of faith, not the main point. Anyone who hopes to halt and reverse church decline must remember what that main point is.   It’s not to entertain people, as Carl Trueman reminded us recently in WORLD. For example, services with a Toy Story or Star Wars theme (I wish I were making these examples up) neither attract serious seekers nor make true disciples. Therapeutic appeals about how Christian principles can supplement or enrich otherwise complete lives also miss the point. Counterintuitively, part of the trend of decline may be churches that ask too little of those who darken their doors.    The authors of The Great Dechurching suggest that low expectations of those in the pews and widely embraced individualist assumptions have led to fewer and fewer Americans finding time for church. If Christianity is merely a kind of hobby or weekly pep talk designed to enhance psychological wellbeing or career success, then we can find better stuff on YouTube or Spotify. Why make time for this type of church every week?  But what if Christianity is a way of life, the thing it’s all about. What if it demands our allegiance? What if following Christ restructures our priorities and pursuits, our beliefs and our behavior—including career, family, and even personal identity?  Everything else in our society directs our gaze inward, to ourselves, our feelings, our priorities, and our problems—as if every individual is the center of his or her own universe. Churches that accept and even participate in this idolatry may be leading millions away from Christianity, not by demanding everything of them but by demanding nothing.   Those who are happy or indifferent about the decline of American churches are beginning to get glimpses of what an America without Christian influence will look like. It can and will get worse. For 2,000 years, the knowledge and fear of a transcendent God, not helpful social programs, has built and filled churches. If the magnitude of that claim is forgotten or even obscured, our churches will indeed become sepulchers—but not for God, who lives and reigns forever and ever. They will become memorials of the squandered heritage of a once deeply, but no longer, Christian nation.   This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A recent BBC article questioned what last year’s Dobbs decision could mean for in vitro fertilization. The owner of a self-described “boutique fertility clinic” in Austin, Texas, told reporters that she’s worried abortion restrictions will be bad for business: “If you say life begins at fertili[z]ation, then how can I grow an embryo in a lab, or biopsy it for genetic testing, or freeze it or thaw it, or implant it in somebody, or leave it frozen?”  These questions should have been asked before IVF became big business. In most fertility clinics today, human lives are put in real danger, especially those embryos designated “extra.” These are either aborted, left indefinitely on ice, discarded, or donated for medical experimentation.   The few clinics committed to a more (though not completely) ethical IVF, by creating a single embryo at a time or requiring that every embryo is implanted, won’t be affected by abortion restrictions, but most of them will. And they should be. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Are bodies something we merely “have,” or are our bodies essential to who we are?  In an advertising video for a local fertility clinic, a doctor asks, “Are you ready to have children, but your body is not?” And then he goes on to describe the services on offer.  The question is an odd one. Even more, it’s downright misleading. Of course, the desire to have a child and not being able to conceive is a terrible experience. Still, the assumptions in that question—that we are somehow disconnected from our bodies, and that what we feel or want is superior to our physical realities—are dangerous indeed.  Versions of these same assumptions have permeated Western culture since its alignment with the ideas of the sexual revolution. For example, think of the man who after an affair says to his wife, “It just happened. She meant nothing to me.” As if his body’s desire, which meant everything during the act of adultery, wasn’t really his desire and was therefore not important. Or think of the young gender-confused Christian who says, “I prayed that God would make me feel like a boy, but he didn’t. Therefore, I must be a girl.” While God may not have changed the young man’s feelings, it’s important to note He also didn’t change the young man’s genitalia. So, why should a change of feelings be relevant to his identity but not a change of biological reality?  Or consider this example from an article authored by my Colson Center colleague Shane Morris of the Christian who justifies watching smutty movies or movie series with sex and nudity by saying, “They’re just actors” or “It advances the story.” Even a ridiculous amount of makeup cannot change the fact that a real body is on display and therefore a real person is being exposed.  These examples are just new expressions of an age-old heresy—one of the first heresies, in fact, dealt with and condemned as such in the early Church: gnosticism. Gnosticism divides reality between the physical and the spiritual. The spiritual is labeled good, while physical matter is labeled bad, or at least irrelevant. Gnostics within the Church taught that Jesus could not have really taken on physical flesh because the physical is bad. He only appeared to be a man.  But the Church fathers saw this for the heresy that it was. If Jesus did not really have a body, who was crucified? And who rose from the dead? And how could He really be one who, in every respect, has been tempted as we are, yet without sin as Scripture says? Didn’t Paul say if Christ has not risen from the dead, our faith is pointless, and we’re without hope?  Contrary to gnosticism, Christianity does not teach that reality is divided between physical and spiritual. Christianity divides reality between Creator and creation. Think of the creation of Adam. God forms man out of the dust of the ground—that’s physical—breathes into him the breath of life—that’s spiritual. And man becomes a living soul. We don’t have souls: We are souls. And to be a human soul is to be embodied. Our bodies are essential, not incidental, to our humanness.  For many of the ancient pagans, the most scandalous of Christian teachings was the resurrection of the body. Just as God raised Jesus’ body from the dead, He will someday raise our bodies, too. When Jesus says in John 6 that He will raise believers “up on the last day,” He’s talking about our bodies. How our glorified, resurrected bodies will resemble our current bodies is a mystery. But we do know the disciples recognized Jesus after the resurrection because of His body, including the wounds of His crucifixion. As Paul says, our bodies will be sown as perishable, but raised imperishable.  Or, to quote the late R.C. Sproul, “For the Christian, redemption is of the body, not from the body.”  It’s odd that after years of being accused by atheists and materialists of being trapped in our spiritual fantasies and ignoring the real world, Christians now find themselves as the ones saying that the physical world—especially the human body—matters, is real, and is of utmost significance. But here we are. If Christ came in the likeness of men, if He promised to redeem humanity, and if our humanity includes the body, then our bodies really do matter.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org (This commentary originally aired February 22, 2017.) 

Recently, ADF International’s Lois McLatchie Miller tweeted out her “radical takes” for 2023: “1. Biological men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports. 2. Silent prayer is not a crime. 3. Ending the lives of babies in the womb is wrong.”   She then offered this conclusion: “Radicals of the past got to say things that were groundbreaking. We’re stuck with defending the obvious.”  She’s right. We ought not underestimate, at least if we take seriously Paul’s description from the first chapter of Romans, how prone fallen humans are to deny what is obviously true and embrace what is obviously false. That’s why, in this cultural moment, stating the obvious is so “radical.”   Still, reality eventually wins. For example, many Western nations are backing away from trans-extremism. Tragically, until they do, many lives will be ruined. Ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims. Thus “radical” Christians must be ready to combat bad ideas and care for their victims. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org