Breakpoint

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

In its most recent term, the United States Supreme Court strengthened free speech by ruling that business owners cannot be punished for expression consistent with their deeply held beliefs and by ruling that affirmative action practices in college admissions violates the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination. All this on the heels of the landmark decision in the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion law to the states. Again, unsurprisingly, the Court is being accused of replacing justice and the Constitution with partisan politics by pundits who decry the Court's conservative bias. However, contrary to the critics, the Supreme Court's record reflects more of a broad consensus than partisan politics. Despite the dramatic ideological diversion of the administrations that appointed the Justices, almost half of the cases decided by the Court each term are unanimous. Though there are certainly outlier years, this was not one of them, and the trend lines have been fairly consistent since the 1950s. Many critics argue that last year marked the end of the Supreme Court's "consensus," pointing to the strong ideological divides on decisions like Dobbs, Carson v. Makin, and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. After all, just 29% of the rulings were unanimous for the 2021-2022 term. Forty-six percent of the decisions, however, were ones in which at least eight of the nine justices ruled in agreement. That can hardly be considered a divided court. During the 2022-2023 term, only six of the 57 cases considered were decided along ideological lines. Twenty-seven of the rulings, about 47%, were unanimous, and over half, 56%, were decided with eight of the nine members again in agreement. Even the New York Times didn't totally misrepresent the reality of these numbers. Of the 12 cases featured in an article summarizing the most recent Supreme Court term, only a third were decided along ideological lines. This year, in fact, a number of rulings featured unexpected alliances and disagreements. In one majority opinion and three concurring opinions, Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch and Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson were in agreement, favoring limits on government power. In a recent case regarding the artwork of Andy Warhol, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—appointed by the same administration and both considered progressive—were in strong disagreement with one another. The willingness of Justices to work together often extends beyond the courtroom and can even result in cultivated friendships. The conservative iconic justice Antonin Scalia famously shared a friendship (and even vacationed) with progressive iconic justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. On the current court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Clarence Thomas have cultivated a beautiful friendship despite their significant ideological differences. In her own words, Justice Sotomayor has "probably disagreed with [Justice Thomas] more than any other justice" but maintains a friendship with him because she considers him a "man who cares deeply about the court as an institution—about the people who work here." The current Court consists of justices appointed by four different administrations, two progressive and two conservative. Still, a general consensus remains. Whatever ideological fault lines exist within the Court are not always determinative of its rulings, as evidenced even in its past two terms. In other words, members of the Court have deep disagreements, but it should not be considered irredeemably partisan. Often, those who bemoan the current state of the Court, consider it illegitimate, and call it a failed institution, only betray their own philosophical commitments. Namely, they have embraced a postmodern view of law and of the courts, which assumes that "to judge is an exercise of power," not an exercise in the interpretation and application of the law. Thus, they cannot imagine that a ruling they do not like could be legitimate. In contrast, we can be assured by the relevant facts that the recent legal victories for life and liberty are not the products of the Court's corruption but a genuine realization of justice for the nation. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Eckert. If you enjoy Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Russell Brand's "brand" is crass British actor, comedian, and freethinker. However, he recently offered a profound take on the Ten Commandments, human nature, and contemporary culture: "When it says in the Old Testament, 'Worship no other gods than me,' the implication ... is that we are a species that worships, and if you do not access the Divine, ... you will worship the profane. You will worship your own identity. You will worship your belongings. You will worship the template lai[d] before you by a culture that wants you ... relatively dumb." Wow. John Calvin called the human heart a "perpetual factory of idols." St. Augustine wrote that the heart remains restless "until it finds rest in" the One Who made us. Pascal talked about the God-shaped hole in the human heart we are always trying to fill. I did not expect Russell Brand to join that esteemed list of keen observers of human nature ... but let's hope God grabs a hold of his heart. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

If it is true, as Richard Weaver famously put it, that "ideas have consequences," it is also true that bad ideas have victims. On no other contemporary issue today is the connection between a bad idea and its victims clearer than assisted suicide. In no other nation today are the bad ideas and their victims more aggressively embraced than in Canada. In a lengthy and powerful essay at The Atlantic this month, David Brooks exposed just how monstrous Canada's so-called "medical aid in dying" regime has become since it was enacted in 2016. Originally, Canada only permitted the request for medical aid in dying to those with serious illness, in advanced or irreversible decline, unbearable physical or mental suffering, or whose death was "reasonably foreseeable." The criteria are vague enough. Since the law went into effect, however, the number of Canadians killed annually has gone from 1,000 to over 10,000. In 2021, one in thirty Canadian deaths was by assisted suicide, and only 4% of those who applied to die were turned down. Were all these people terminally ill or suffering from serious and irreversible conditions? Hardly. In fact, Brooks tells the story of a man whose only physical condition was hearing loss yet who was "put to death" over the objections of his family. Another patient had fibromyalgia and leukemia yet wrote that "the suffering I experience is mental suffering, not physical. I think if more people cared about me, I might be able to handle the suffering caused by my physical illnesses alone." One otherwise healthy 37-year-old who suffers from schizoaffective disorder and is unemployed said, "logistically, I really don't have a future. … I'm not going anywhere." As of Brooks' writing, that man was awaiting approval for assisted suicide. Simply put, Canadians who need help are instead being helped to kill themselves because they're depressed, lonely, or mentally ill. And the slope keeps getting slipperier. Brooks described patients who have been pressured by doctors and hospital staff into killing themselves to avoid medical bills. Earlier this year, the Canadian Parliament's Special Committee on Medical Assistance in Death recommended extending the program to "mature minors" as young as twelve. Brooks observed, this is what happens "when a society takes individualism to its logical conclusion." The core question "is no longer, 'Should the state help those who are suffering at the end of life die?'" It is now whether any degree of suffering is worth living with. He concludes, "The lines between assisted suicide for medical reasons … and straight-up suicide are blurring." Brooks clearly identified the bad idea behind these victims: what he calls "autonomy-based liberalism." In its place, he proposed something called "gifts-based liberalism," which acknowledges that each of us is a "receiver of gifts … including the gift of life itself." That life, Brooks insists, is "sacred" because each of us is endowed with "dignity," and society has a duty to say, "No, suicide is out of bounds. … You don't have the right to make a choice you will never be able to revisit. … We are responsible for one another." At least, that is, in most cases, according to Brooks. He is so close to getting this one right and articulating the sanctity of life in the way Christianity does. That's why it's frustrating that Brooks seems to think it's possible to climb back up the slippery slope and re-establish assisted suicide only for "extreme" cases. He writes, "I don't have great moral qualms about assisted suicide for people who are suffering intensely in the face of imminent death." But, David, the moment you begin setting criteria for when a life is no longer worth living, no longer sacred, and a person no longer deserving of love instead of lethal injection, you let the bad idea that led to all those victims right back in the cultural door! For all his admirable reporting on how bad it has gotten in Canada, Brooks never gets around to answering his core question: Why did Canada's "medical aid in dying" law–which supposedly limited victims to only those he agrees should have the right to die–become government-sponsored mass suicide in just seven years? The answer is simple: because the value of human life is not based on any extrinsic quality. Period. It's instead based on the fact that humans are made in God's image. We belong to Him, not to ourselves. This is ultimately why the slope from accepting some suicides to all suicides is so slippery. It's also why "gifts-based liberalism," until it acknowledges the one who gave us life, will never be able to keep its footing or help those intent on throwing away the very gift. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Local authorities in a coastal English town are dropping the threat of legal charges against Adam Smith-Connor for praying silently outside of an abortion clinic. In a video of the incident, a police officer, obviously uncomfortable, asked Smith-Connor to describe the "nature of [his] prayer," adding that she doesn't "want to probe." She suggested Smith-Connor might be violating the town's "buffer zone" rule, which outlaws "acts of disapproval" outside of the clinic. Ultimately, the officers say they believe he is allowed to pray silently, but they still fined him. Smith-Connor refused to pay it. People have to stand up to government overreach. It's much easier to be a council member and pass an ordinance like this from safely inside City Hall than to be the police officer charged with enforcing it while their gut says, "No, this isn't right." And Christians, who are called to "live not by lies," as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it, may have to make tough choices about what or Whom they must serve. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Despite having three daughters, I can't say I ever expected to discuss the theological implications of a movie based on Barbie dolls. And yet, Barbie is dominating headlines, not only for bringing in a whopping 155 million dollars on its opening weekend, but also for garnering thought-pieces on the deeper meaning of its plot and for its cultural implications about the identity and value of women. A Vox article, for example, compared its plot to the biblical account of the Garden of Eden, with a primal couple living in a paradise before newly discovered knowledge about good and evil taints the world with corruption. Whether or not director Greta Gerwig intended that particular angle, her "Barbie" not only engages with contemporary discussions about feminism but also the biggest of worldview questions, such as "What's the meaning of life?" "What has gone wrong with the world?" and, "What will fix the world?" In the process, Barbie tells a story of the world that, beneath its shiny colors and self-aware snark, more closely reflects the tenets of postmodernism than the truths of Scripture. In Barbieland, the meaning and purpose of life is to be happy, and happiness means a woman-run society of libertine freedom and unhindered expression. Lines repeated throughout the film include "Barbie is every woman, and every woman is Barbie," and "Barbies can be anything, so women can be anything." In this view, to be empowered is to be free of restraint and responsibility. Something that is also communicated in its view of motherhood. Both Christian reflection and common sense betray what's wrong with this subjective view of happiness. If happiness is what life is all about, and our experiences of happiness swing on such an extreme pendulum of circumstance, freedom, and expression, how can anyone be happy for long? True happiness, as C.S. Lewis taught, is a byproduct of a life well lived, rather than the goal. Happiness requires that we are connected to something larger than ourselves, ultimately God. We belong to the One who made us for Himself, and, in Him, we find true joy. Barbie's answer to the question, "What's wrong with the world?" is, well, men. When she is cast into the "real world," she discovers that its brokenness is due to the actions and attitudes of men, primarily against women. As one character proclaims, "We can only agree on one thing. We all hate women. Men hate women, and women hate women." This is both an astute observation and an odd complaint in a society unable or, more accurately, unwilling, to say what a woman is (other than as a "non-man"). In the world of this movie, every man is both oppressive and oblivious. Barbie can outsmart them all while Ken only "slows her down" and "gets into trouble." Rather than accept the female-ruling class of Barbieland, Ken longs to emulate the powers of middle-aged white men in the "real world." So, he introduces his own brave new world, "Kendom." But in the world of Kendom, the ultimate obstacle to happiness and freedom is men. They are not good. Women are. This is, of course, the same framing of reality that shaped second- and third- wave feminism. In the biblical account, sin is disobedience and the longing for autonomy. What's wrong with the world is the conflict, pain, and death that resulted. Sin has infected the world ever since and has turned the sexes against one another. Men have screwed up the world. So have women. Both were created good by God. Both are not good because of sin. In the film, Barbieland is fixed by expelling the patriarchy. Barbie calls on one of the "real" women from the "real" world to preach the gospel of oppression to brainwashed Barbies. The unthinking Kens turn against themselves. The Barbies are given a Barbie-fied version of Betty Freidan's Feminine Mystique: Women are victims of oppression and can never win. They are even victims of their own bodies, shaped as they are by the design of motherhood. On this point, the movie is not subtle. In a scene from the film's first two minutes, young girls, bored with their baby dolls, smash them on the ground until their heads explode. A pregnant Barbie is also hinted at as being "creepy" and is discontinued. In the end, Barbieland is made new, restored to the paradisical, women-run society it once was. The Kens "find themselves" too, but apart from Barbie. In other words, men and women were not made for each other. Or were they? Much of the film's discussion has to do with the final scene, in which Barbie chooses to not live in the restored Barbieland utopia, but in the real world of humanity instead. As such, there's a not-so-subtle acknowledgement of the reality of human bodies, especially the female body. It's not clear if Gerwig intended this final scene as a sort of undermining of the subjective portrayal of Barbieland. What is clear, whether she intended it or not, is that this is a world of objective realities, and the answers to life's biggest questions can only be found by first acknowledging that. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Michaela Estruth. If you're a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org