Breakpoint

Earlier this week, the pro-abortion group NARAL tweeted in tribute of the Supreme Court decision that mandated “same-sex marriage” on all of America:  “Eight years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges recognized the right to same-sex marriage. But the fight to start or grow our families—however and whenever we want—continues.”  “Same-sex marriage” was sold with the claim that with birth control and abortion, modern marriage had been divorced from procreation in any meaningful sense. “Love is love,” the line went, though even if morality is left out of the discussion and only male-female relationships produce children.  So, the word “spouse” was redefined in law. Now, according to NARAL, true equality requires that inherently sterile relationships be able to have children “however and whenever [they] want.”  Science is busy making it easier to access this want, and if California lawmakers get their way, insurers will have to cover pregnancy treatments for same-sex couples.  Redefining words has consequences. Redefining “spouse” meant redefining “parent,” and redefining a child as a “right.” For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, the East African nation of Uganda passed a law that will increase criminal punishments for homosexual acts. Same-sex activity was already illegal in Uganda, as it is in several other African nations, and Ugandans convicted under the law already faced life in prison. Under this new law, people convicted of attempting to engage in homosexual behavior could face 10 years behind bars. Those convicted of “aggravated homosexuality,” defined as sexual abuse of a child or knowingly spreading HIV, could face the death penalty. Anyone convicted of “promoting homosexuality” could be imprisoned up to 20 years.  Reaction in the West was quick and fierce. President Biden immediately denounced the law, threatening to withhold humanitarian aid from Uganda. United Nations officials claimed that the law would criminalize Ugandans for “being who they are.” An early draft of the legislation did include a provision criminalizing merely identifying as LGBT, but that didn’t make it into the final bill.  There is plenty wrong with this new Ugandan law, including the severity of punishment and the unrealistic level of police activity that would be required to ever enforce it. A pioneer and strong advocate for criminal justice reform, Chuck Colson believed that the goal of criminal law and enforcement should be rehabilitation and restoration whenever possible, not punishment for punishment’s sake. Unfortunately, in Uganda, as in many nations both Western and developing, the criminal justice process is more punitive than restorative.  Of course, the specifics of the Ugandan law and its prescribed punishments didn’t drive the reaction from Western media and government officials. Instead, the very idea of regulating sexual activity at all is now largely unthinkable, at least in those places in which it has taken decades to normalize, de-stigmatize, and now celebrate sexual deviation in the name of “pride.”    (To be sure, the West also claims to celebrate things like “cultural diversity” and indigenous values and claims to oppose things like “cultural imperialism” and colonialism. So, shouldn’t we respect a country that will not be overrun by our modern Western ideals? Shouldn’t we resist the urge to impose our culture on theirs, as if ours is somehow better? Yet that’s not the way it went.)  Largely overlooked is that most Western nations have never experienced the level of devastation from the continuing AIDS crisis like nations such as Uganda have. According to the UN, 1.4 million Ugandans have HIV/AIDS, including roughly 5.4% of the country’s entire adult population. An estimated 800,000 Ugandan children are orphans of the AIDS crisis there. Meanwhile, in the U.S., only 0.3% of adults live with HIV or AIDS and, because of technology and wealth, most are able to manage the condition.   Up until quite recently, most nations had laws intended to restrain certain kinds of sexual activity. In fact, nearly all of them still do. For example, nearly every nation restricts and punishes relationships with animals or incest. Though many primitive and pagan societies did not regulate sexual behaviors, as the world became more civilized, governments across time and cultures found compelling reasons to regulate some sexual behaviors because of wide implications for public life, public health, population growth, women’s rights, and the safety and wellbeing of children. Historically speaking, nations in decline were the ones that deregulated sexual behaviors. Progressing nations understood why certain legal restrictions are necessary.  Governments have the right and the responsibility to exercise authority over private acts that carry significant public consequences. That does not mean that all laws are feasible in all societies. A law to restrict sexual behavior, even one nothing like Uganda’s, would be a political nonstarter in the United States. Uganda, however, has not weathered a decades-long, extremist sexual revolution. In fact, it is entirely possible that the Ugandan law is the result of the dominance of LGBT lobby groups over every area of Western culture including education, the harm done to the minds and bodies of children, and government leaders realizing, “we don’t want that here.” Or perhaps, “we could never survive that here.” In other words, the fact that Uganda’s law could never pass in the U.S. says as much about the extremism of our culture as it does theirs.  It is not clear how or if this law will be implemented in Uganda in any meaningful sense. It is not, in my view, a good law. It is over-punitive and would, if enforced, punish victims as well as perpetrators of the ideas it hopes to eliminate. At the same time, a society that truly understands and promotes human flourishing would, in fact, have laws aimed at restricting and eliminating harmful ideas and behaviors, and at protecting those who would be victimized by them.     This Breakpoint was co-authored by Maria Baer.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, Illinois lawmakers voted to withhold funding from public libraries if they removed sexually explicit books, and officials in Virginia voted to withhold funding for libraries until they dealt with the sexually explicit books in the kids’ and teens’ sections. Amid the library wars, new graduate of the Colson Fellows program Ashley Borrego decided to give her neighborhood a better kind of library. This fall, the Cornerstone Living Library will open inside Cornerstone Bible Church in Lilburn, Georgia. Ashley is filling the shelves with donated books—from Christian authors to homeschooling resources to Nancy Drew mysteries—that respect kids as kids. Parents will soon be able to take their kids to a library without having to screen everything for obscenity and lies.  What if all churches served their communities by providing libraries? Colson Fellows like Ashley are agents of restoration wherever God has placed them.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

What does music mean? Most people today, without realizing it or giving much of a second thought, think of music and art along the lines of 18th-century philosopher David Hume, who wrote:  Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty.  Beauty, in other words, is in the eye of the beholder, and nothing more. Therefore, Hume continued in words that resemble a teenager telling mom and dad to get off his back: “Every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others.”  Rejecting notions of objective truth and universal morality, many in the modern world assume that beauty is not a category of reality that exists outside of the human mind but is entirely a subject of individual taste. Music can be fun, edgy, or distracting. It might even carry therapeutic benefits. But it isn’t rooted in anything transcendent, eternal, or objective.   Recently on the Upstream podcast, my colleague Shane Morris discussed music and meaning with Dr. Jeremy Begbie, a theologian at Duke Divinity School and the University of Cambridge. Dr. Begbie, whose work centers on the intersection of music and theology, argued that music is in fact not neutral. Rather, it is a function of the way we are made by God and ultimately points to deep truths about God and about ourselves.   Here’s Dr. Begbie:  I was speaking to an atheist musicologist, a very distinguished musicologist not so long ago. And he said that music, he believes, ultimately, is about tuning us in to each other and to the physical world at large. It’s about belonging, you see. ‘Oh, how interesting,’ I said. It’s interesting that Christianity has a little bit to say about that. It’s not primarily our job in the world ... to be individuals who simply express themselves or simply get things off their chest, so to speak.   God has made us for each other and has made us to live in harmony with this physical world in which we’re set. And for me, therefore, it makes wonderful sense to say that this is what music is about. Indeed, it’s what language is about. It’s what hundreds of things are about—just this kind of worldview.  Historically, many philosophers—from Plato to Aristotle to St. Augustine—reflected on the “three transcendentals”: goodness, truth, and beauty. Christian thinkers argued that these are attributes of God and therefore clues to the meaning of life. In this view, beauty is an objective reality, grounded in the nature and work of God Himself. This explains why beauty can make such a meaningful impact on human beings. Even those who reject the idea of universal truths and are cynical about our ability to truly know anything cannot help but wrestle with the pull of beauty.   Joseph Pearce explained it this way in a recent article in The Imaginative Conservative, “What … is the role of good art? … The answer is to be found in the power of beauty to touch heads that have forgotten how to think and hearts that have forgotten how to love.”   Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky famously suggested that “Beauty will save the world.” Dostoevsky’s friend, 19th-century philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, explained why he believed this:  In his convictions he never separated truth from good and beauty; in his artistic creativity he never placed beauty apart from the good and the true. And he was right, because these three live only in their unity. The good, taken separately from truth and beauty, is only an indistinct feeling, a powerless upwelling; truth taken abstractly is an empty word; and beauty without truth and the good is an idol. For Dostoevsky, these were three inseparable forms of one absolute Idea.  This is not to suggest that there is no room for subjective experience and interpretation of beauty. Expressions of art, including music, must be perceived by those with tastes and preferences shaped by experiences, culture, knowledge, and various degrees of virtue. We might disagree on whether a Bach concerto carries more or less aesthetic value and technical excellence than a modern rock ballad. Still, that both can be distinguished from meaningless chaos, says something about order and design in the world.   As does the fact that music is more than mere stimulus-response. Even if we don’t know why, musical beauty points us beyond ourselves and offers a clue about the meaning of the universe and the God who made it and us.   This Breakpoint was co-authored by Kasey Leander.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In a fumbled attempt to be more “inclusive” during “pride month,” Johns Hopkins University announced updates to its glossary of LGBT terms. Particularly controversial was a new definition of “lesbian,” as a “non-man attracted to non-men.” The definition, avoiding the term “woman” altogether and centering on “men,” appalled even members of the queer community. One lesbian called it “progressive misogyny.”   It’s another example of transgender ideology leading to the erasure of women. However, L, G, and B critics of this terminology miss how their own body-denying views contributed to this. Homosexual practice is just as much a rejection of the body as transgender ideology is.   For that matter, the hook-up culture, digital technology, abortion, and plenty of other things common in the modern world, have also eroded our collective understanding of the human body and its unique value. The only way forward is to recover the God-given meaning of the human body, who and how God created us to be.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

According to political scientist Ryan Burge, the group of people in American society most likely to be highly engaged in political action are not evangelicals, as we’ve been led to believe. They are in fact atheists. “Let me put it plainly,” Burge wrote, “atheists are the most politically active group in American politics today, and the Democrats (and some Republicans) ignore them at their own peril.”   In a slew of indicators—from actions as simple as putting up a yard sign, to the more proactive of attending a protest march—atheists not only outdid their evangelical neighbors but, in most cases, were the most likely group to put money and time toward partisan activities.  Given the common perception that the religiously minded are most prone to political action, we’d be justified to ask just how this false narrative came to be taken for granted. However, an even more interesting question is why so many atheists live ultra concerned about truth and justice in political matters, given that their worldview commits them to a world without ultimate grounding for either? If the world is nothing more than ever-shifting arrangements of atoms, quarks, and leptons, why would we direct any passion toward the political realm?  At least part of the answer is what might be called “the Ricky Gervais solution.” Gervais is the acerbic British comedian known for both skewering Hollywood elites and insisting on atheism in film, television, and real life. In a scene from one of his shows, his character is accosted by a stereotypically dim-witted believer who cannot fathom that someone would not believe in an afterlife. Why even bother to care about things, she asks, if this life is all there is? Gervais retorts that it’s precisely because this life is all we have that we should live what little we get to the fullest.  Historian Tom Holland argues that this is how modern atheism preaches a version of the “good news” about overthrowing idols and leading others to a better life. In this sense, Holland writes, “Atheism in the contemporary West is less a repudiation of Christianity than a logical endpoint of one of its key trends.”  The great passion of modern atheists to make things right in the world comes not so much from rejection of God’s existence but from an anger against Him for the way He made it. The French philosopher Albert Camus argued that the atheist, as a metaphysical rebel,  defies more than he denies. Originally, at least, he does not suppress God; he merely talks to Him as an equal. But it is not a polite dialogue. It is a polemic animated by the desire to conquer. The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown.  Or, as C.S. Lewis put it when describing his atheist days,  I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.  This era of atheist activism presents Christians with a unique opportunity. (Two, in fact.) First, there is opportunity for co-belligerency. Even if ultimately unwarranted, by expressing a great passion for justice and truth in our world, atheists often reach a point of common ground with Christians, namely the rising power and intolerance of “wokeism” and our culture’s critical theory mood.   According to Evan Griggs, an agnostic writing in The European Conservative,   Those of us committed to fighting back against the “woke” must come to terms with the fact that only Christianity is potent enough to defeat the cult of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Non-believers need not convert, but it is time for us to get out of the way.  The other opportunity is the ever-present potential for loving our unbelieving neighbors. Whenever an atheist expresses a passion for justice, they are making a tacit admission that there must be more to life than what their worldview allows. We can remind them that the human dignity upon which they insist is rooted in Christian convictions about the imago Dei. We can offer an explanation for the presence of evil in the world, not as an illusion or fabrication or mere inconvenience, but as a real aspect of life after the fall.   We as Christians also have reason for hope that goes beyond mere wishful thinking for circumstances to change and for good to triumph over evil. We look for the restoration of all good things by the work of Jesus Christ, according to the will of the loving God Who created atheists, yet Whom they deny.   This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy D. Padgett.  For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

The Colson Fellows program is a lasting legacy of Chuck Colson following God’s voice. It’s been one year since the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade. What’s the result?   — Recommendations — Colson Center National Conference Online Megan Phelps-Roper on Armchair Expert   Section 1 - Chuck Colson's Legacy “Christianity Does Not Stop With Salvation: That’s Only the Beginning …” Breakpoint Section 2 - The One-Year Anniversary of Dobbs "Fewer Abortions Post-Dobbs" Breakpoint Section 3 - Archeological Findings in the Middle East "Archeology Continues to Confirm Biblical Record" Breakpoint For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

According to the British paper The Guardian, a U.K. woman recently pled guilty to taking an abortion pill later than the 10-week limit allowed by law. She lied to online doctors, claiming to be less than 10 weeks along when she really thought she was more like 28 weeks. It turns out she was wrong about that too. In fact, she was close to 32 weeks pregnant, nearly full term, and had searched online for the legal consequences of seeking late-term abortion.   As we approach the first anniversary of the end of Roe v. Wade, this case from the U.K. shows just how radical states like Colorado, New York, California, and Michigan are by allowing abortions up to birth, no questions asked. Most European countries restrict late-term abortions. It also demonstrates just how much mail-order abortion pills have changed what it means to protect and defend life. Yes, we need more laws that restrict this evil practice, but we hope for the day when all kinds of abortion are unthinkable.   For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A year ago, after 49 years of Roe v. Wade straitjacketing legislatures and courts into a draconian pro-abortion regime, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the infamous 1973 ruling. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health the court returned power to the states to determine abortion policy. Pro-life groups have rightly celebrated this fruit of decades of labor, encouraged that their efforts were not in vain. They can also be confident that their work to serve mothers and children will no longer be hamstrung by the miscarriage of justice embodied by Roe.   At the same time, it was not clear a year ago what the end of Roe would mean state by state. How divided is our country over this issue? What would the future of defending pre-born lives entail? Would the Dobbs decision take us closer to the ultimate goal: that abortion would not be merely illegal in some places but unthinkable everywhere? Or would the demon of Roe be replaced by seven more, even worse?   Recently, an article in National Review summarized what can be discerned from the annual Gallup Values and Beliefs poll. The number of Americans who identify as pro-life has grown in the past year by four points, to now 41% of the population. Similar numbers of those polled believe that abortion is a moral wrong. A majority of Americans think that abortion should be illegal in the second trimester, and a strong majority believe it should be illegal in the third trimester.  Not only has public opinion shifted in the wake of the Dobbs decision, but lives have been saved: over 24,000 of them, in fact, according to the statistics organization FiveThirtyEight. Though an additional 69,000 abortions were performed in pro-abortion states compared to the same time period a year before, that was more than offset by the over 93,000 fewer abortions performed in pro-life regions.   The dramatic difference between pro-abortion and pro-life states is an indication of the ongoing radicalization of the pro-abortion movement. States such as New York and California long ago replaced the pretense of “safe, legal, and rare” for macabre celebrations and blatant attempts to silence all pro-life dissent. More recently, and in reaction to Dobbs, my own state of Colorado has passed legislation that will make it among the most radical pro-abortion places in the Western world. There has also been an uptick in vandalism and flagrant violence hurled at pro-life agencies and activists.   The most difficult obstacle to the prospect of building a pro-life culture, even in otherwise pro-life states, is the increasing popularity and availability of mail-order abortion pills. These dangerous chemicals, which kill the children and risk the lives and health of their mothers, can be secured at home, often without a doctor’s visit. According to most estimates, chemical abortions, which are notoriously difficult to track, now account for over 50% of all abortions.  Another development over the last year has been the failure of pro-life legislation in otherwise ostensibly conservative places, states such as Montana, Kansas, and Kentucky. Even in states where laws were passed, as in Indiana, pro-life lawmakers had a tougher-than-expected struggle. Thankfully, there were courageous and committed lawmakers who pushed through. In states with so-called “trigger laws,” laws already on the books in the case of Roe’s demise, abortion clinics have been closed and restrictions on abortion have been added, leaving whole regions increasingly abortion-free.   The Dobbs decision has also had unexpected implications for other at-risk children. A few years ago, I had the privilege of interviewing Hannah Strege and her family. Hannah was the very first so-called “snowflake baby,” meaning she’d spent the first two years of life as a frozen embryo conceived via in-vitro fertilization, before being adopted and given a chance at life. Hanna and her parents presented an amicus brief for the Dobbs case, arguing that her life shows that viability begins at fertilization due to modern technology. Now, post-Dobbs, the Streges continue to advocate for the protection of embryos as distinct, valuable human beings as more and more states take up the question of when life begins.  The rest of us must continue to advocate for the protection of pre-born life, knowing it will take years of political campaigning, legal maneuvering, crisis pregnancy intervention, and care for at-risk moms and babies. For a free resource on how you can work toward creating a culture of life, go breakpoint.org/abortion.   This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy D. Padgett. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, a high school graduate from South Carolina, Lydia Owens, shared her testimony in her graduation speech. She encouraged her classmates that no matter their accomplishments or failures, their value comes from being made in the image of God.   Lydia described losing her mom, who had been her greatest inspiration, just two years earlier. “When everything else in my life felt uncertain, the only person that I could depend on to stay the same was Jesus,” Lydia said. Lydia told her classmates they need not worry about success “because God promises that His grace is sufficient for us, and that His power is made perfect in our weaknesses.” The crowd’s reaction demonstrated that they had been deeply touched by Lydia’s faith and courage. Her speech has now gone viral. Lydia’s faith makes it clear that students should never be forced to leave their faith out of the classroom. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org