Breakpoint

At least since the movie Inherit the Wind butchered the history of the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial," many Americans—especially those on the left side of the political spectrum—have cherished a kind of myth about national debates being settled in dramatic courtroom clashes. In reality, they seldom are. However, that doesn't stop idealistic plaintiffs from trying. The most recent controversy dragged before a judge was whether the state of Montana could be held responsible for climate change. Earlier this month, Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that the state's failure to take climate change into account when greenlighting new oil and coal projects was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs were a group of young people called Our Children's Trust. They sued the state over fossil fuel production, claiming that Montana violated a section of its constitution that guarantees citizens "the right to a clean and healthful environment." Climate activists have hailed the decision as a significant victory and model for the nation but have not been clear on what exactly has been accomplished. As The New York Times put it, unless a higher court overturns the ruling, Montana must now "consider climate change when deciding whether to approve or renew fossil fuel projects." That's all. They must "consider." Ed Whelan at National Review concluded that the impact of this "Children's Crusade to defeat climate change" on actual energy production and carbon emissions "might well be zero." Perhaps future projects will involve a symbolic gesture, akin to the so-called "land acknowledgments" commonly seen in academia and on recent episodes of Alone Australia. These rituals involve a speaker beginning by naming the Native American tribes on whose ancestral land they're standing. Of course, such acknowledgments, as Princeton's Robert George recently remarked, "do no one any good." No one gets land back. No de-colonization takes place. There aren't any reparations. It's "just a cost-free form of moral preening." Few issues are more consistently plagued by this kind of cost-free preening than the debate over climate change, and not only in America. Last month, Spanish Climate Minister Teresa Ribera dramatically arrived at a European Union climate conference by bicycle. Photographers and reporters weren't supposed to find out that that she took a limo for most of the trip and only pedaled the last couple of blocks. But I'm sure Mother Earth was grateful. Almost everything about the Montana case was similarly theatrical, from the 16 children recruited and presumed to have standing to sue the state, to its arbitrary nature. Why Montana, which produces a lot of oil and gas but has only about a million residents, rather than, say, California, which has about 40 times the population, creates a significant demand for that fuel, and emits vastly more CO2? Answering that question requires speculation about people's motives. All of it certainly looks as if the primary goals of so much climate activism isn't to cool the planet, but to display superior virtue. At heart, it is not so different than the Pharisee from Jesus' parable, who loudly thanked God that he was not like other men. It's true that we have a responsibility to leave our children a healthy planet, but the work required to do that won't be done in the courtroom of sparsely populated states or by bicycle photo ops. It will take place in the workshops and imaginations of engineers who come up with better and cleaner energy sources. It will take place in legislatures that have the will and the ability to lift restrictions on existing alternatives like nuclear energy. It will take place when those who say they care about the planet stop trying to locate the problem with someone else "out there" (usually in red, flyover states) and start recognizing their personal responsibility for both the problem and the solutions. Most of all (and here we move beyond just the climate change debate), we need to recognize how unhealthy our addiction to "cost-free moral preening" is. It's a habit at the heart of so much we fight over, from mommy blogs and those annoying "we believe in" yard signs to pandemic posturing and presidential elections. The constant need to be better than "those people"—and to be seen being better—betrays a deep spiritual anxiety that no amount of political posturing can cure. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Kids born in our morally turbulent age, and the parents committed to guiding them through it, have precious few resources that can help them sift through the chaos. A few years ago, WORLD Magazine, a longtime Christian worldview partner of the Colson Center, added a daily news program for kids to their already impressive lineup of print and digital resources. The tagline for WORLD Watch with host Brian Basham reads: "We can't keep your kids from growing up too quickly, but we can help them grow into humans equipped with news literacy and Biblical discernment. And make it fun, too." It's tempting and often appropriate to shield our kids from what's going on. But even if that were possible all the time, we need to help them face now what they will face when they are no longer in our homes. Rather than hide them, let's guide our children to think well in this time and place where God has called them to serve Him. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A few weeks ago, voters in Ohio rejected a ballot measure that would have made it harder to amend the state's constitution. As it stands, to amend Ohio's constitution only requires 50% of the vote plus one. Issue 1 would have raised that threshold to 60%. The turnout for this vote was unexpectedly high for what appeared to be a procedural change. It was the only issue on the ballot. However, this vote was not merely about a procedure. It was also about abortion. In November, abortion advocates will put forth a proposal to enshrine the "right" to an abortion in Ohio's constitution, with no restrictions on the age of the baby or the mother. Had Issue 1 succeeded in Ohio, this new amendment would have been much more difficult to pass. In other words, Issue 1 was the latest chapter in the story of abortion in post-Dobbs America. Last year, within six months of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, voters in three states, Vermont, California, and Michigan, added a right to abortion to their constitutions. Kentucky voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited almost all abortions. And, in Montana, voters rejected a measure to mandate that doctors care for babies born alive after botched abortions. The Ohio amendment was not technically an abortion vote, and it strained under additional political realities. Still, we have enough data at this point to assume how state-level politics on abortion are trending. For decades, under the judicial tyranny of Roe v. Wade, pro-life activism aimed to make abortion unthinkable. The primary strategy was to show that the preborn in question are, indeed, babies by, among other means, making the philosophical arguments in defense of life, offering empirical evidence through funding ultrasound machines, and distributing tiny life-size models of preborn babies. This was done in the context of a growing and constantly improving network of care centers offered to women facing unexpected pregnancies. All of this work made a significant difference and saved an incalculable number of lives. However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs case was not a popular vote. It was a welcome gift of God to the cause, and a world without Roe is better than a world with Roe. However, it is best to remember that it was a court case and should not be viewed as a cultural bellwether. While it may be the case that at least some of these state-level ballot initiatives may have fared better had they been more clearly worded, the most obvious takeaway is that all our thinking about abortion is happening in the context of a culture steeped in relativism. People are increasingly willing to grant that the preborn is a baby (or at least increasingly unable to pretend it isn't), but they also tend to have a follow-up question many pro-life activists didn't anticipate: "So what?" For many, perhaps the vast majority of people, the highest moral good is individual autonomy, and the default position on abortion is permissiveness. Even those who say they'd "never have an abortion" repeatedly tell pollsters they aren't comfortable taking away that option for somebody else. In that context, making rules that curb autonomy or being a tiny person who interferes with that autonomy are cardinal sins. Relativism and the related commitment to personal autonomy are evils built on the false premise that we are the creator and not creatures. In this worldview framework, the only real moral errors are not having the world I desire, being made to do something I don't want to do, or being prevented from some life I imagine will make me happy. Any meaningful pro-life agenda must account for this situation on the grounds that we are defending life in a cultural moment in which many are willing to sacrifice everything, even what is acknowledged as a child, to pursue these ends. Ultimately, we'll need to demonstrate, in both word, and deed, that this premise is false, untenable, and enables great evil. For example, abortion does not free and empower women, despite what has been claimed for decades. We now know that 7 out of every 10 women seeking an abortion feel pressured or coerced. Of course, these women still have a choice, but this is anything but "autonomy" and freedom. Christians know what happens when "everyone does what is right in their own eyes." Cultures that worship personal autonomy inevitably violate human dignity. Within a Christian worldview, the dignity of every human person as image bearers supersedes their potential to infringe on someone's perceived autonomy. We were made for higher and deeper things than feeling comfortable and happy from one moment to the next. All we have learned about where we really are in this post-Roe moment points to the fact that there will be no shortcuts, legal or otherwise, in our ongoing efforts to protect preborn life. We cannot stop stressing the fact that every preborn child is a unique, valuable, and fully human image bearer of God. We'll need to champion the very strange idea that marriage, sex, and babies go together and, when they do, they bring strength and flourishing to society. We'll need to stop enabling and rewarding men who pressure, coerce, or abandon pregnant women, while helping women deal with crisis pregnancies. Let's get to work. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Maria Baer. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Stories that depict parenting as the end of happiness are a cottage industry these days, but a story told recently in People magazine was different. Arkansas teachers Tasia and Drew Taylor are, at just 23 and 25, raising two teenagers, with a baby on the way. First, the Taylors took in Tasia's cousin Tamiray. Then they adopted Rory, a 13-year-old student at the school where Tasia taught, when they learned she was being placed in foster care. When asked why, the Taylors said, "We felt God was calling us." Tasia described their decisions to provide a home for these teenagers in this way: "People try to make us out as martyrs a lot of the time, and that's not what we are. There's no way that in our heart we could turn these kids away knowing that we had the space for them, and we were willing to provide for them." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Sixty years ago today, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" Speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The most well-known line of King's speech is this one: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." That vision has never been fully realized, and its greatest threat today is a set of ideas that purport to advance racial justice but instead oppose it. Critical Race Theory and the critical theory mood that infects so many areas of our culture, especially education and media, are all about issuing judgments about the character of entire groups of people based solely upon the color of their skin. Twenty years ago, in a commentary about this historic speech, Chuck Colson articulated why only the Christian vision of the human person can ground an understanding of human rights, universal human dignity, and value that extend to everyone. Recently, the world has learned disturbing details about King's character and moral failures. Colson's analysis of King's ideas, and his call to Christians to live out of a Christian worldview, remain true and relevant today. "More than forty years ago, on August 28, 1963, a quarter million people gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial. They marched here for the cause of civil rights. And that day they heard Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, a speech in which he challenged America to fulfill her promise. "I have a dream," he said, "that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.'" While we know of the speech, most people are unaware that King also penned one of the most eloquent defenses of the moral law: the law that formed the basis for his speech, for the civil rights movement, and for all of the law, for that matter. In the spring of 1963, King was arrested for leading a series of massive non-violent protests against the segregated lunch counters and discriminatory hiring practices rampant in Birmingham, Alabama. While in jail, King received a letter from eight Alabama ministers. They agreed with his goals, but they thought that he should call off the demonstrations and obey the law. King explained why he disagreed in his famous "Letter From a Birmingham Jail": "One might well ask," he wrote, "how can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer "is found in the fact that there are two kinds of laws: just laws … and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws," King said, "but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." How does one determine whether the law is just or unjust? A just law, King wrote, "squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law … is out of harmony with the moral law." Then King quoted Saint Augustine: "An unjust law is no law at all." He quoted Thomas Aquinas: "An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal or natural law." This is the great issue today in the public square: Is the law rooted in truth? Is it transcendent, immutable, and morally binding? Or is it, as liberal interpreters argue, simply whatever courts say it is? Do we discover the law, or do we create it? Many think of King as a liberal firebrand, waging war on traditional values. Nothing could be further from the truth. King was a great conservative on this central issue, and he stood on the shoulders of Augustine and Aquinas, striving to restore our heritage of justice rooted in the law of God. Were he alive today, I believe he'd be in the vanguard of the pro-life movement. I also believe that he would be horrified at the way in which out-of-control courts have trampled down the moral truths he advocated. From the time of Emperor Nero, who declared Christianity illegal, to the days of the American slave trade, from the civil rights struggle of the sixties to our current battles against abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and same-sex "marriage," Christians have always maintained exactly what King maintained." That was Chuck Colson, reflecting on the ideas that shaped Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, given 60 years ago in Washington, D.C. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

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