Breakpoint

Since it was legalized in 2016, Canada has increased pressure on doctors and hospitals to offer assisted suicide. Recently, an article in WORLD Magazine reported that Canadian authorities kicked a nonprofit called the Delta Hospice Society out of its rented building because they refused to kill their patients.  Before they closed, executives with the hospice said they had briefly considered registering as a “faith-based organization” to qualify for a religious exemption under Canadian law.  This is a cautionary tale that while religious exemptions are important, they do not offer protection from immoral laws. This is especially the case when the state dramatically limits who should be considered “religious” enough for an exemption. Faith cannot be reduced to names or titles or just evangelistic work. More importantly, a religious exemption cannot make an unjust law just.   So-called “Medical Aid in Dying” is exactly not aid in dying: It is aid to die, and that means it’s not medical. Instead, it is harmful.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, Chloe Cole, a 19-year-old young woman who was pressured to undergo transgender surgeries, challenged a social media video by Neil deGrasse Tyson, the populist astronomer and science personality. Although a legitimate astrophysicist, Dr. Tyson’s public proclamations and videos are not always from his area of scientific expertise. In fact, they aren’t always scientific.   In this particular video, Tyson asserted, in favor of gender ideology, that “no matter my chromosomes today, I feel 80% female, 20% male. I’m going to put on makeup. I’m gonna do it. Tomorrow, I might feel 80% male.” Seemingly to Dr. Tyson, the ability of people of any gender to feel a particular way and then to put on makeup accordingly, proves that “the XX/XY chromosomes are insufficient because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice.” Dr. Tyson continued in a blatantly non-scientific statement, “What business is it of yours to require that I fulfill your inability to think of gender on a spectrum?”   In her reply, Chloe Cole interspersed video of herself confronting his bizarre claims.   How about we stop confusing basic human biology with cosmetics? Like, what a weird jump. … I don’t wear makeup most days. If I leave the house without makeup on, does that make me like 70% [m]ale?... If it was only truly about aesthetics, nobody would care. It’s my business because you’re using 1950s gender stereotypes to justify an ideology that leads to the sterilization and mastectomies of 15-year-old girls who just don’t fit in, girls like me.  Cole ends her video with,  The idea that people can be percentages of either male or female just further reinforces the fact that biological sex is a binary. There’s only two. There may only be two sexes, but there are an infinite number of personalities. I mean, it really doesn’t take a degree in astrophysics to understand that.  Watching Dr. Tyson’s video and Cole’s response, I was reminded of something from my childhood. Due to the popularity of Superman in the late 1970s, Mr. Rogers dedicated a week of his daily TV show to helping kids distinguish between what was real and what was make-believe. He was concerned by the reports of children who put on capes and thought they could fly, leaping from staircases or top bunks or balconies and causing serious injuries. He even took his viewers onto the set of the show The Incredible Hulk to show them that the actors involved were indeed only actors.  In other words, he understood that children struggled to distinguish between make-believe and reality. This is exactly what Chloe Cole did earlier this week, only she was instructing an astrophysicist about the harm done to children in the name of “science,” while Mr. Rogers was confronting the harm done to children by cartoons. Cole knows that putting on makeup, a dress, or a muscle shirt cannot transform a man into a woman or a woman into a man. Even worse, she knows that neither did the testosterone she received at age 13 nor the double mastectomy at age 15 make her a boy.   According to Mr. Rogers’ biographer Max King in the documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, Rogers was “angry that it was his medium that was doing this,” i.e., deluding and harming children. What began with his concern about children being misled prompted a new weekly theme for the show Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood that dealt with tough issues such as death and divorce.    Like Cole, Rogers wasn’t a scientist. But he was committed to helping children discern truth from error, the difference between make-believe and reality, between the cosmetic and one’s identity. He even famously sang a song that clarified that kids could not become whatever or whoever they wanted, that only boys could be daddies, and only girls could be mommies. In fact, he once said, “I’ll tell you what children really need. They need adults who will protect them from the ever-ready molders of their world.”  Those are the kind of adults that children still need. What we all need less of is the sort of thinly disguised, condescending, and anti-scientific rhetoric that molds their identities.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Heather Peterson. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently on NPR, reporter Rachel Martin interviewed Dr. Lisa Miller, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Columbia University, about her controversial claim that spirituality is good for mental health.   According to Miller, those who say spirituality is “very important” show an 80% decreased risk for addiction to drugs and alcohol and are 82% less likely to die by suicide. “[T]he more high risk we are,” Miller said, "the more that there’s stress in our lives, … the greater the impact of spirituality as a source of resilience.”   “Here is published, peer reviewed science for skeptical audiences,” the interviewer concluded, which runs contrary to what we so often hear. Though a particular kind of religion is not specified by Dr. Miller, apparently turning our focus outward and even upward is better for us than just “looking inside” or “following our hearts.”   That makes sense if we are indeed creatures and not just self-creations, made for relationship with the One who gave us life in the first place.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

As unexpected as it was that the Barbie movie would spark such a widespread and intense cultural conversation, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, a film about the brilliant and broken man who became the father of the atomic bomb, has too. The film tells the story of the man who gave the world the power to destroy itself, or as Oppenheimer famously put it, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”  Atomic weapons have been a constant source of debate since their initial use to end the war against Japan in 1945. At the time, Christians had a dual reaction. On one hand, many breathed a sigh of relief that the long war was over, that the boys would come home, and that there would be no further repeats of the devastation seen at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, where Japanese resistance was so fanatical that they fought almost to the last man. On the other hand, Christians shared the widespread sense that a deadly Pandora’s Box had been opened and that there was no way to go back to a world before “the Bomb.”  Certainly, the sheer destruction and the immense casualties leveled on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are difficult to justify. America has also been accused of racist motivations in dropping the bomb, and in overlooking the significance of the August 8 Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the weakened state of the Japanese military that late into the war.  The fact remains, numerous factors must be considered in light of some ethical framework. By far the best framework for considering war comes from the Christian contribution of the just war doctrine. Specifically, in what is known as jus in bello, just war doctrine says that for a war, or even part of a war, to be considered moral, it must only be done for the right reasons and in the right ways.   For example, while civilian deaths are inevitable, particularly in modern war, noncombatants must never be targeted. This was recently argued again by Adam Mount in Foreign Policy magazine. He wrote that in dropping the bomb, Japanese civilians weren’t merely collateral damage but intentionally killed as an act of terror to scare Tokyo into surrendering. In response, Marc LiVecche wrote in Providence magazine that the attacks were indeed a demonstration to the Japanese government, but the target of destruction were the cities, not the people within them.  It’s also significant to keep in mind the pressures of the cultural moment. President Truman faced the brutal question of how to end the immense suffering of a war that had gone on so long, when great suffering would follow no matter what he did. As such, doing nothing would not have been a preferable moral option. The Japanese empire had for years been perpetuating great evil upon its neighbors, leaving millions dead and millions more enslaved.   Had the Americans gone ahead with the planned “Downfall” invasions of Japan, the death toll might have made the atomic attacks pale in comparison. Simply blockading Japan without direct attacks of any sort would have left millions of Japanese people to slowly starve before the military caved, something they’d already demonstrated an intense unwillingness to do.  From the comfort and safety of distance and time, it is much easier to issue a simple proclamation. Reality on the ground at the time is not so simple, and theological reflection, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, must be done in the “tempest of the living.” Centuries ago, when asked by a Roman officer if he could, in good Christian conscience, continue his work as a soldier, St. Augustine replied, “Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of a peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantages of peace.” Just war doctrine warns us that any and all actions in a war must not be seen as their own end but only as the means toward a greater end.   War is always awful and sometimes necessary. The great virtue found in just war doctrine is not that it allows for a clean war, free from doubt about our actions. There’s no such thing. However, it can help guide those forced to do terrible things in the face of horrible options. To learn more about just war theory, see Just War and Christian Traditions, edited by Eric Patterson and Daryl Charles.   Today’s Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy Padgett.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

The Oppenheimer movie has Christians revisiting the morality of warfare. An extra warm summer in some parts of the U.S. raises climate fears again. John and Maria discuss ways to slow down the growth of assisted suicide.   — Recommendations — Summit Ministries Latigo Ranch Section 1 - Just War and the Bomb Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition by J. Daryl Charles Letters and Papers from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer "Let’s Talk About Just War" by Nathaniel Peters "Canadian hospice forced to close after refusing to offer assisted dying" CNA   Section 2 - Climate Change The Editors podcast Section 3 - Assisted Suicide  "States remove protections from assisted suicide" WORLD "Canada’s Suicidal Slide" Breakpoint For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

The number of teens experiencing symptoms of depression are higher than ever. According to research from psychologist Jean Twenge, 49.5% of teens report that they feel they “can’t do anything right,” 44.2% report that they feel their “life is not useful,” and 48.9% say they “do not enjoy life.”   Each of these findings is roughly double what they were in 2009.   These stats are the latest in a growing body of research that demonstrates a significant link between teens’ mental health and their usage of new media. The combination of smartphones, internet, and social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter is dramatically harmful especially when contrasted with those who spend time participating in in-person activities like sports and religious services.   For families who hope to help their teens avoid or overcome depression, the best starting place is to restrict usage of smartphones and social media. All families should proactively cultivate healthy disciplines with devices, as well as habits and choices that promote real-time, in-person relationships.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, British author and journalist Helen Joyce offered a hard-to-hear but reasonable explanation for why transgender ideology continues to endure, despite its inherent contradictions, its obvious falsehoods, and the harm that has been inflicted on children. Her words are worth quoting at length:    "There’s a lot of people who can’t move on [from] this and that’s the people who’ve transitioned their own children. Those people are going to be like the Japanese soldiers who were on Pacific Islands and didn’t know the war was over. They’ve got to fight forever. This is another reason why this is the worst social contagion that we’ll ever have experienced. A lot of people have done the worst thing that you could do, which is to harm their children irrevocably, because of it. Those people will have to believe that they did the right thing for the rest of their lives for their own sanity and for their own self-respect. So, they’ll still be fighting.   I’ve lost count of the number of times that somebody has said to me of a specific organization that has got turned upside down on this, “Oh, the deputy director has a trans child,” or “the journalist on that paper who does special investigations has a trans child.” The entire organization gets paralyzed by that one person … And now you can’t talk truth in front of that person because what you’re saying is, you as a parent have done a truly—like a human rights abuse level—awful thing to your child that cannot be fixed."   In other words, according to Joyce, the real breakthrough of the current gender ideology movement has only come through the co-opting of parents, whose instincts to protect their children tragically became a threat to them and their wellbeing. This was accomplished, in large part, because Western medical authorities ultimately betrayed parents.   Dr. Miriam Grossman, a clinical psychologist, has described this phenomenon in her new book Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness:   "The entire mental health profession—psychology, social work, counseling—was captured by radical ideologues years ago, and you and your families are paying the price. The doctors are wrong, your gut is right. Your son will always be your son. Your daughter will always be your daughter. To say differently is inane. And to place blame on you, parents who represent reality, is shameful." Dr. Grossman’s best advice for parents is to “[t]rust your parental instincts. The entire world is telling you to put your gender-questioning child in the driver’s seat, but you will learn they’re wrong.”   The story of 19-year-old Chloe Cole, “perhaps the most well-known detransitioner in America,” is a case in point: “They coerced my parents into allowing me to do this. And while my parents were required to sign off on everything, they were also putting it on me, because I desired to do this.”  In fact, most parents who deny their children’s wishes and instead try to do the right thing will often find entire communities opposed to them. Friends, counselors, teachers, and medical professionals—not to mention their own children—will condemn them as hateful and bigoted, and even accuse them of choosing a “dead daughter over a live son,” or vice-versa. After all, it is the children, these new experts insist, who are the inexhaustible source of truth about who they are, and their desires should always be respected.   All of which means that, if Christians do not come to the support of parents walking this incredibly difficult road, no one else will. Pastors, youth pastors, Christian friends, neighbors, and family members simply must show up here. And parent, if you are in the middle of a child’s gender crisis, remember that you can walk with them in truth and in love. Or, as Dr. Grossman has said, “It’s possible to survive, albeit with scars.”  Erin Friday, a California mom described her journey this way:   "Your love for your child has to be strong enough to take their vitriol. And it’s very, very hard. I spent many nights crying myself to sleep. Some days, I didn’t get out of bed. But you still have to do it, because now there’s not a day that doesn’t go by that my daughter doesn’t say that she loves me … even if my daughter didn’t come back to have a relationship with me … I saved her from being a lifelong medical patient, so I would do it again."   Tragically, there are many parents whose children chose differently. Even more tragically, there are many parents who fit the description offered by Helen Joyce. Coming to terms with what they have done to their children seems impossible. So, Christians must run toward this brokenness with the Gospel, especially its offer of forgiveness and promise of restoration.   Many men and women have faced the reality of choosing to have an abortion and, in the process, were found by Jesus Christ. Their lives prove again that no one is beyond the reach of God’s grace, that as Paul wrote to the Romans, “by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”   In this cultural moment, the Church must help parents know and choose what is true and find hope when their children choose otherwise.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Kasey Leander.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

If all we had to go on was Salon, Slate, or The Atlantic magazines, we’d be forced to conclude that becoming a parent is a life sentence of loneliness. Though studies do demonstrate a loss in certain forms of happiness for parents, according to Brad Wilcox of the Institute for Family Studies, that conclusion “no longer fits the data.”   Nearly 60% of childless men and women say they are lonely some, most, or all the time while only 45% of those with children report the same. Likewise, “82% of parents say they are ‘very happy’ or ‘pretty happy’ compared to just 68% of the childless.”   Some of the shift likely has to do with how the pandemic disrupted social life, which families were partially insulated against. Another factor is likely America’s improved work-life balance.   More important is how happiness is defined. Kids can create stress like nothing else, but they are also a source of joy and meaning.   For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, proposed The National Strategy for Social Connection Act. The bill has three parts. Part one would create a White House Office of Social Connection Policy to advise the president on the epidemic of loneliness and develop strategies to improve social connection. Part two would mandate the federal government to develop an official, national Anti-Loneliness strategy across all federal agencies. Part three would send more funding to the CDC for the study of the mental and physical effects of loneliness.   The bill itself exemplifies the clunkiness and inefficiency that characterizes the work of the government: a new office will be formed, then an office will be placed inside that office, and that office will advise and send money to yet another office.  To be fair to Senator Murphy, America is facing a very dangerous loneliness epidemic that is quickly becoming a public health crisis. Rates of suicide, homicide, depression, self-harm, crime, and social isolation are at all-time highs. These trends are correlated with loneliness, which researchers have found can be twice as detrimental to our physical health as obesity.   Even if well-intentioned, there are two fundamental problems with Senator Murphy’s legislation. First, no program, government or otherwise, that does not first understand what it means to be human can hope to combat the growing pandemic of loneliness. Second, there are some problems that the government with its clunkiness simply cannot address.   It is a very modern belief, as Jacques Ellul so clearly described in his writing on the rise of “technocratism,” that all problems can be solved through the proper application of technique and the effective use of technology. This illusion only contributes to the expansion of state power. After all, who else can be trusted to properly apply the technologies that promise to solve our problems?  Under this illusion, there is less and less room to look to God for help. Consequently, there is less and less concern for how He created the universe, including human beings, to function in the first place. If there’s no real motivation to seek out our intended design, there’s even less reason to seek out the Designer, and on and on it goes.   This same faulty assumption is at the root of Senator Murphy’s proposal. Like a lot of political solutions, creating a government office to combat loneliness assumes human beings are less like God and more like problems to be solved. If we can just get the technique right, by setting up the right system at scale, we can “reboot” all these lonely humans back to their factory settings so they’ll stop making so much trouble.  Of course, because that’s not what humans are, no government program will ever be able to regenerate the fallen human heart.  Though the state cannot solve all problems, it can incentivize and disincentivize certain behaviors. For example, many social welfare programs disincentivize marriage. No-fault divorce policies disincentivize long-lasting marriages. Legalized abortion incentivizes (or at least de-stigmatizes) risky sexual behavior. Calling same-sex relationships legal “marriage” reduces marriage from being the basic unit of social society and the source of healthy population growth into little more than “two people who like each other ... at least for now.”  The reality is that healthy, intact families are the single most effective tool to combat loneliness. Yet with every one of these policies, the government has weakened family stability. Any proposed legislation to “fight loneliness” that doesn’t mention the cancer of fatherlessness in this country just isn’t serious.  Senator Murphy has written elsewhere about the connection between loneliness and the breakdown of institutions like the family, churches, sports clubs, and civic clubs. But the physical act of walking through the doors of a church or civic center or YMCA will not magically relieve loneliness. Institutions foster deep relationships because they call people to devote themselves to things outside themselves. People form deep bonds with others when they are devoted to something bigger together, and that devotion also gives them a reason to put up with each other. This is an important but overlooked factor in a cultural moment in which we’re often encouraged to “get rid of toxic people” in our lives, as if human relationships should never experience conflict or tension.   Loneliness is a public crisis because people are lonely. People are lonely because their hearts were made for relationships with others and with God. If the government really wants to “solve loneliness,” its money would be better spent hiring whomever it planned to lead the Department of Social Whatever and telling them to instead pick up the phone, start dialing, and tell the person who answers to get married, have kids, go to church, and call their mom.   This Breakpoint was co-authored by Maria Baer.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Disney has decided, again, to reimagine a classic. Instead of the traditional seven dwarves, the new Snow White will be accompanied by seven “magical creatures” of all ages, sizes, and genders. Of course, Disney has always been rather liberal with source material. Few Disney movies follow the original plots of the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen.  Even so, a recent Tweet thread highlighted how this kind of ideological editing can move from a quirk to a crisis. Its author noted the passion with which progressive commenters reject anyone saying anything nice about the Middle Ages. More than poking holes in romantic views of the past, everything must be all filth, all sickness, all the time.  This is more than bad history: It’s willfully bad history. Progressivism is built on a wholesale rejection of older ways of doing things, especially anything reflecting a Christian worldview. A better take is one that allows for real progress, while never assuming that the newer is always going to be better.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org