Breakpoint

Over the last year, we've reported on the (literal) trials of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who was accused of "hate speech" for sharing Bible verses in support of traditional sexuality. Twice already, she has been found "not guilty" by the courts. But as our friends at ADF reported last week, prosecutors are now trying to get that verdict overturned. According to Paul Coleman of ADF International, the attacks on Räsänen have been relentless. "As is so often the case in 'hate speech' trials," he said, "the process has become part of the punishment." Recently, a progressive Christian author argued that since Räsänen is "only" threatened with a fine and not prison, it's not really a big deal. But censorship is a big deal. The loss of freedoms that are good for everyone is a big deal. Christians and others who care about human flourishing and about loving our neighbors should stand against persecution of any degree. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In this special edition of Breakpoint, John Stonestreet sits down with Dr. Miriam Grossman to discuss the facts behind transgender ideology. Miriam Grossman MD is board certified in psychiatry and in the sub-specialty of child and adolescent psychiatry. The author of five books, Dr. Grossman's work has been translated into eleven languages. She has testified in Congress and lectured at the British House of Lords and the United Nations. This is a followup conversation from the latest Breakpoint Forum: The Real Facts About Gender Ideology. You can find the full recording for the forum on the Colson Center YouTube channel. - Resources - MiriamGrossmanMD.com Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist's Guide Out of the Madness by Miriam Grossman M.D. The Identity Project Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT) RealityBasedPublishing.com He is He and She is She books by Ryan Bomberger Accepting signatures: An Open Letter to the American Psychiatric Association Regarding the Publication of Gender-Affirming Psychiatric Care For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

God has placed us in this moment, a moment that is really a historical anomaly. Among other things, this implies we have a responsibility to be the moral people upon which democracy depends. Thus, we must commit again to loving one another, to governing our tempers, ambitions, greed, and tendency toward selfishness, and to never compromising on the truth of what it means to be human or what it means to seek the good. ______________ In Don't Follow Your Heart: Boldly Breaking the Ten Commandments of Self-Worship, author Thaddeus Williams exposes and refutes the false narratives enshrined in our secular culture. Exchange the futility of the "cult of self" that promises fulfillment and freedom for a life of courageous faith in Jesus, the true source of life. Request your copy today by visiting colsoncenter.org/january. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In a newly resurfaced clip from 2020, English philosopher A.C. Grayling claimed he could think of nothing truly unique that Christianity had given the world. Historian Tom Holland replied with what my colleague Shane Morris called, "one of his best 'mic drop' moments." In about 90 seconds, Holland rattled off a list that included lifelong marriage, concepts of sexuality that protected women and children, the modern scientific project, the idea that humans bear the image of God, the universality of ethics, and more. As Holland put it, "Essentially what I'm talking about … is … what makes Western civilization distinctive." These ideas ended slavery, expanded care to the poor, established democracy, educated the masses, and insisted that everyone be under the same law. The source of every one of these ideas is centuries of Christian reflection on the truths of the Bible. In short, what has Christianity given the world? Nearly everything that matters the most. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

One feature of American life for some time now is that women, as a group, tend to fall to the left of men politically. For much of the twentieth century, that gap was relatively minor. Until 1980, in fact, the sexes voted within a few percentage points of each other. Since then, things have changed dramatically. Citing polling data from Gallup, Brad Wilcox of the Institute for Family Studies recently pointed out that the percentage of young men ages 18 to 29 who identify as Republican has risen by double digits in the last decade. "Some have doubted the idea that young men (18-29) are turning right," he tweeted. "Time for them to wake up." As late as the mid-2000s, a similar portion of 18- to 29-year-olds of both sexes—just under 30%—identified as "liberal." However, according to an American Enterprise Institute survey last year, 46% of white Gen Z women called themselves "liberal." Some conservative scholars like the Acton Institute's Anthony Bradley think this emerging divide extends beyond political commitments to other areas as well, including morality. Last week, he tweeted: "Gen Z is different. Women are more liberal than the men and this includes personal morality as well. More and more guys are willing to wait until marriage & fewer women are. Women now celebrate having a "high body count" [a.k.a., many sexual partners] as a[n] empowerment. Today's young men are more traditional." More evidence is required before we can conclude that American young men have had some kind of moral awakening, especially given the popularity of morally objectionable figures like fitness influencer and depraved pickup artist Andrew Tate. Still, the trends in self-description seem to hold in other polls, even for high schoolers. One factor behind this striking political divide between the sexes, especially the rightward turn among young men, is the Left's obsession with condemning "the patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity." Many young men hear this as a condemnation of their very existence. Similarly, the leftward lurch among women could have something to do with the perception that abortion is a women's issue and the increasingly hysterical warnings that restricting abortion is the equivalent of subjecting women to Handmaid's Tale-style reproductive slavery. Still, pollsters have noted for decades now one thing that reliably predicts conservative views and voting, especially among women: marriage. Pick pretty much any election in any year, and half or even most married women vote differently than their unmarried counterparts. In the 2020 election, for instance, the gap between how married and unmarried women voted was 15 points, compared with a 10-point gap between married and unmarried men. As we know, marriage has been in steep decline for years. In fact, Pew Research reports that the share of 40-year-olds who have never been married is higher today than at any time on record. Fertility, too, is near a record low, making our country more single and more childless than at any other time in its history. It would be foolish to think these numbers would not eventually show up in political behavior, and that one of the most likely proofs would be the widening gap between the voting habits of men and women. Marriage and family are chief among what conservative writers have long called society's "mediating institutions," those layers between individuals and the state that provide security, opportunity, and meaning without the government's intervention. As entering marriages and creating families becomes rarer, it's little wonder so many who historically would have looked for protection and provision in the home are now instead looking to Washington. In other words, the wedges that radical feminism, the sexual revolution, and the breakdown of the family have driven between the sexes are likely the main reason for this growing political divide. Women and men were created for one another, not just to build families but to build societies. Since each sex is indispensable, both, in their own ways, are lost when isolated. As the Apostle Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians, "Woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." Instead of pointing fingers at one another as Adam and Eve did after the fall, we should take this emerging political divide as clear evidence that without our oldest and most important mediating institution—the family, society unravels. There's no way forward if men and women remain at such loggerheads, not only does dating become a nightmare, but the future is at risk. After all, the government cannot birth new citizens, voters, and taxpayers. Men and women stand or fall together. A nation in which the sexes are at war is a house divided against itself at the most fundamental level. Such a house cannot stand. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, vis

A recent article in Christianity Today states, "Overall, 365 million Christians live in nations with high levels of persecution or discrimination." That's more people than live in the United States. The most troubling spots tend to be either authoritarian states like Cuba and North Korea, or Muslim-dominated areas like Saudi Arabia. Nigeria accounts for over 75% of world martyrs, with over 4,100 killed between October 2022 and September 2023. In contrast to a popular Western claim, the growing hostility to faith is not because these precious brothers and sisters are too prudish, too powerful, or too white. It's because they have embraced the name of the One who suffered on their behalf. Francis Schaeffer once wrote, "No totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions." In any place where religion, ideology, or state demands absolute loyalty, Christians will be seen as a problem. Please pray for those suffering, and pray that we would be given a portion of their courage. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Ideas tend to sprout up in academia, but the ones that matter do not stay there. Even when birthed in seemingly abstract fields like epistemology (the study of knowledge), ideas can have a major impact on culture. This is especially evident in the modern to postmodern shift from an objective and verifiable understanding of truth to a subjective and socially constructed understanding of truth. This shift has landed us in what can be called "standpoint epistemology." Standpoint epistemology is the view that everything we think and know, and even what we consider knowledge to be, is determined solely by our race, "gender," sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other identity categories. Objectivity, in this view, is impossible, and no perspective can claim superiority over any other since there is no external standard by which to measure. Standpoint epistemology is essential to Critical Theory, especially its priority of championing "marginal voices;" specifically those groups seen as victims, oppressed, or invisible in Western societies. These groups not only have a particularly important but overlooked perspective, they have one that is more valid and more valuable than those from privileged groups. The privileged, in fact, should be ignored or treated with contempt, according to this view. Or, to paraphrase George Orwell, all perspectives are equal, but some are more equal than others. Standpoint epistemology has had a keenly negative influence on the humanities. Classics, from Homer to Shakespeare, are often replaced not with classics from non-Western cultures but with works that reflect the contemporary fads of academics. In the study of history, the truth of standpoint epistemology is treated as universal and absolute (which, of course, contradicts it). Western history is reduced to a simplistic morality play where everything is seen as power dynamics, with evil oppressors and the virtuous oppressed. It is assumed that since "history is written by the winners," the narrative priority is to subvert traditional history and highlight marginal voices to show that the "winners" were actually oppressors. Western history, therefore, is mostly seen through the lens of colonial studies, the story of villainous colonizers and innocent indigenous peoples. Though true up to a point, telling the story only in this way ignores verifiable historical facts and force fits history into a framework dictated by contemporary sensibilities. What this means in practice is that Spanish brutality in Mexico is condemned as intolerable while the slavery, oppression, and human sacrifice of Aztec society is nuanced, overlooked, or even celebrated. The United States is an imperial power unjustly driving indigenous tribes off their lands, but tribes that did the same to their equally indigenous neighbors are excused. If standpoint epistemology is true, then it is impossible to understand the past or learn from it. People are stripped of a true understanding of their history and culture, and thus of a critical part of their identity. Non-Westerners are dehumanized and stripped of agency, reduced to pawns of the more powerful. Long embedded in the humanities, these same ideas are now making inroads into the STEM fields. In some school districts, the idea that there are right and wrong answers in math is presented as an example of white supremacy and oppression. A problem cannot, in this view, have a single correct answer, since that implies there is objective truth in math. Of course, the same mathematics used to build a bridge in the United States is also used in Africa, but that doesn't matter to the ideologues promoting these ideas. This misguided embrace of standpoint epistemology will, in the end, make it far more difficult for students to pursue careers in business, finance, engineering, or the sciences. As we often say, ideas have consequences and bad ideas have victims. Standpoint epistemology is a bad idea, and we've only now begun to see the victims that will be left in its wake. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

The rising generation is our most educated generation if you compare the number of millennials who completed bachelor's degrees with that of previous generations. However, as British commentator Peter Hitchens recently pointed out, being "schooled" isn't the same as being "educated." What he said about British schools could be applied to many U.S. ones: "Our education system teaches the young what to think, not how to think. And if you ever wonder why so many things don't work properly any more, or why you can't get any sense out of so many organisations, this is one of the main reasons." When students are indoctrinated in critical theories regarding gender and race, when pushback is considered "harassment" or "racism," and when the main point is to sexualize kids, it's not education. As Steven Garber has written, "Education, always and everywhere, is about the deepest questions of life and the world." Education wrestles with the hard questions, training students to think critically and creatively. Christians have always championed education. We can today too. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was first released on 12.7.22.

In the last few years, the credibility of science or, more accurately, scientists, has taken more than a few hits. Take for instance the rush by many doctors, researchers, academics, and medical institutions to force transgender ideology on children. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society have both issued guidelines for medically transitioning minors. From the beginning, maverick scientists have called foul, pointing out that the safety and long-term effectiveness of such "treatments" had not been evaluated. It seems now that only real-world consequences for actual children can curb the enthusiasm for untested and misguided experimentation on kids. In 2022, the U.K.'s largest gender clinic announced its closure over a lack of evidence to support its ghoulish interventions. Shortly afterward, U.K. lawyer Tom Goodhead estimated that around 1,000 families would join in legal action against the clinic, claiming their children were "misdiagnosed and rushed into transitioning." The first lawsuits against the American Academy of Pediatrics have also been filed by a child who grew up and regretted transitioning. Transgender "medicine" isn't the only practice advanced as "scientifically proven" despite the absence of evidence. Even earlier, assisted reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization and surrogacy were pushed on the public with little understanding of or concern for the safety and long-term consequences for women and children. Like transgender medicine, the line is that the "science says the kids will be fine." Don't buy it. Recently, the Heritage Foundation's Emma Waters reviewed the available evidence about some of these technologies. "Despite what many experts want you to believe," she writes, "we actually know very little about the impact of surrogacy on the long-term wellbeing of children and families." As it turns out, babies gestated by a surrogate show a marked increase in preterm births, physical defects, and low weight. This is just what we know for certain, partly because we've been kept in the dark. As Waters explains, scholars who review the literature on surrogacy typically use studies that are outdated, small, short-term, or based on self-reporting by the "parents" who paid for the children. A frequently cited U.K. study "relied on the parents' own assessment of the child's wellbeing, not objective outcomes or the child him/herself." Using that study as proof that surrogacy doesn't harm children is kind of like asking students to grade their own exams. Waters suggests two major red flags about the current research: first, studies in which "the conclusions are too squeaky clean;" and second, studies whose "self acknowledged goal" is "showing that there are no differences between same-sex, natural, and artificially conceived families and the impact … on children." In other words, these studies are advocacy, not science. Constructing better studies, Waters argues, will require tracking children over longer periods, having surrogates report their number of pregnancies, keeping tabs on who sells or donates eggs and sperm, and knowing who children born of surrogates are and who their biological parents are. As she warns, "There is a huge difference between 'no harms' and no *known* harms." Still, even without that research, there are pragmatic and moral reasons to oppose the creation of children with the intent to implant them or place them with strangers. Children were designed to know their parents. Separation from the man and woman who made them is a tragedy. Arrangements like foster care and adoption respond to that tragedy, but conceiving children with the express purpose of separating them from their parents is very different. It creates the tragedy. Similarly, paying women to carry children for nine months and then forcing them to walk away as part of a commercial transaction ignores the intimacy and sanctity of that bond, as well as its ongoing, powerful effects on both carrier and baby. Pope Francis was recently crystal clear on this one, despite his confusing and misleading statements on other serious issues. In a recent speech to diplomats, he blasted surrogacy as "deplorable," insisting it "represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child," whom it turns into "an object of trafficking." "A child," he added, "is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract." In this age of accelerating technology, and ideologues eager to wield it, the most vulnerable members of society need someone to hold so-called "experts" accountable and to ask the questions about human design, purpose, rights, and relationships that no study can answer. No matter how scientific sounding they are, claims that we can ignore God's design for sex and the family are expressions of an anti-human worldview, not objective research. And that's a very good reason to say "no" to this worldview's ongoing demand for tiny test subjects. This Breakpoi

John and Maria talk about the growing incidents of persecution against Christians worldwide, gender confusion, and what to make of the results of the Iowa caucus. Recommendations Finding the words to sing - WORLD The Identity Project Segment 1: Open Doors 2024 World Watch List Open Doors 2024 Watch List Highlights persecution of sub-saharan African Christians Open Doors World Watch List 2024: Trends Segment 2: Introducing the Identity Project IdentityProject.tv Segment 3: The Iowa Caucuses Trump freezes out competition in Iowa Caucuses Trump's biggest Iowa gains are in evangelical areas, smallest wins in cities A New Kind of 'evangelical'? For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Earlier this month, an image was shared on social media featuring what looked like a bit of used tissue paper with the caption, "Just a reminder that this is what an 8 week pregnancy/abortion looks like." The inference is that pro-lifers are fools or liars to call the preborn "a child." It didn't take long for that tweet to get called out. The image had been doctored. The "tissue" was not an embryo but merely an empty gestational sac. A real 8-week embryo has hands and feet, heart and head, and is very clearly a tiny human being. While the claim "it's just a clump of cells!" was questionable 50 years ago when someone first uttered it, decades of technological development make it morbidly laughable. The imagery available now completely undercuts any idea that what we see in the womb is less than human. What has been revealed is how divorced from reality the pro-abortion camp has always been. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Seven hundred years ago, Italian scholar Marsilius of Padua helped lay the foundation for our modern ideas of popular sovereignty. In his book Defensor Pacis, written in the context of an ongoing battle in Church-state relations, he anticipated the idea of separate spheres for Church and state. Though tensions over the balance of power between Church and state were probably inevitable, it took surprisingly long for them to develop. In the Roman Empire, the state regulated religious practice. Christianity was an illegal religion in the Empire for nearly 300 years, but when legalized, a precedent was set for the Church to operate separately from the state. For centuries, the two sides cooperated without much fundamental conflict. In the Latin West, questions about the relationship between Church and state arose at the end of the eighth century. In 799, Pope Leo III was accused of a variety of crimes. He appealed to Charlemagne, the king of the Franks, for judgment. Though unsure whether he had jurisdiction over the Pope, Charlemagne acquitted Leo. Since this suggested Charlemagne was over the Pope, Leo decided to redress the balance by crowning Charlemagne emperor on Christmas of 800, implying papal authority over that office. After Charlemagne, both the Church and the state suffered serious decline for nearly a century. The title of emperor fell into disuse, and the papacy descended into a period of moral degeneracy. In the late 900s, with the aid of Church reformers, the Germanic King Otto I managed to centralize enough power to be named Holy Roman Emperor. He and his successors deposed a series of corrupt popes and appointed reformers in their place. These reforming popes soon found their dependence on the emperor both theologically and politically problematic. Politically, by playing around with the rules and making deals with the emperor's enemies, they managed to loosen the papacy from imperial control. Theologically, they began to argue that as the eternal is superior to the temporal and the spiritual to the physical, the Church is superior to the state and the pope to the emperor. In effect, this meant the Church was over the state. The logic was that, since the civil government was established by God to enforce righteousness, and the pope was the vicar of Christ on Earth, he should be arbiter of what is righteous, and secular rulers must obey. If they failed to do so, the pope claimed the right to depose them, even the Holy Roman Emperor. Unsurprisingly, the Holy Roman Emperors disagreed with this logic. An early conflict was over who should name and install bishops. Since Otto I, bishops had been part of the imperial government, and emperors had insisted on their right to pick the bishops. The popes argued that bishops are primarily ecclesiastical offices and should be appointed and installed by them. This issue came to a head when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Emperor Henry IV and tried to depose him, while Henry also tried to depose Gregory and even invaded Italy to make it stick. The issue was eventually resolved by their successors. But the basic question of whether the pope was over the emperor or the emperor over the pope continued to fester, sometimes resulting in war, excommunications, and the appointment of anti-popes. In the context of these conflicts, Marsilius of Padua wrote his book. He took the imperial side, arguing that the Church had no jurisdiction in secular matters. It should interpret Scripture and define dogma, while secular affairs were the responsibility of the civil government, whose members were to be elected or appointed by the most important citizens. In the same way, he believed that clergy, including the pope, should be elected by the people or their representatives. Even within the Church, papal authority was limited since supreme authority was vested in Church councils called by the emperor. Marsilius also argued that tithes should be eliminated, Church property should be seized by the government, and clergy should live in holy poverty. Marsilius's work was supported by prominent Franciscans, including William of Ockham, who championed the ideal of apostolic poverty, and was later promoted by Thomas Cromwell to support Henry VIII during the English Reformation. Defensor Pacis was an important step in advancing ideas of popular sovereignty and democracy, though it implicitly supported imperial authority. Despite its anticlericalism, it made important contributions to ideas about the proper relationship between Church and state. Given current debates about Christendom and Christian Nationalism, studying historical works like Defensor Pacis could enrich our understanding of the place of the Church in civil society. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

University of Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh was barely in the locker room after his team's victory in this year's National Championship before reporters were pointing out his 11 million dollar paycheck. While the controversy over what college football coaches make isn't going away any time soon, the University of Michigan also pays 30 million dollars to nearly 250 employees in its various diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. DEI staffing is a major industry, especially at universities, often with vague, unmeasurable goals. Efforts tend to focus on hiring practices, devolving into racial quotas and quickly elevating sexual minorities above everything else. And, they typically don't work. The University of Michigan, as a state school, is funded by taxpayers. Change means wading through a lot of bureaucracy. It takes time, strategy, and political courage, but it can be done. If Americans want their universities to prioritize education over ideology, we should remember that we hold their purse strings. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

To see this What Would You Say? video in its entirety and to share it with others, go to whatwouldyousay.org. Or, you can look up the What Would You Say? channel on YouTube. Be sure to subscribe to be notified each time a new video is released. _________ Among the unexpected stories of 2023 was a renewed interest in all things extraterrestrial: from images of alien corpses; to retired high-ranking military officials claiming secret government programs launched to capture UFOs; to a strange encounter with Las Vegas police officers. The public interest in whether there's anything out there is as high as ever. But what would the existence of alien life mean for Christianity? That's the question tackled in a brand new video, part of the What Would You Say? series, called "What Does the Bible Say About Aliens?" Many people assume that if any evidence were to be discovered for extraterrestrial life, it would be devastating to the Christian worldview. However, according to my colleague, Shane Morris, that's not necessarily the case. In fact, according to Shane, "There's nothing in the Christian view of the world that excludes the possibility that God created life on other planets." In this video, Shane offers three things to keep in mind. First, that "despite the hype of science fiction and decades of searching, there is currently no evidence for life on other planets." "[A]fter decades of looking and listening and exploring the heavens for that life, we've come up empty-handed. So much so, in fact, that physicists and astronomers have named the emptiness the Fermi Paradox, which refers to 'the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence.' In other words, if life happens easily, 'Where is everybody?' [Peter] Ward and his co-author, Donald Brownlee, argue in Rare Earth that life doesn't happen that easily, and assuming that it does is the real mistake. At least a dozen special conditions found on our planet are probably necessary for the existence of intelligent life, including a precise orbital distance from our star, heavy elements, liquid water, a moon, a magnetic field, not too much gravity, a nearby gas giant, and having a star like our Sun, which, as it turns out, is anything but 'ordinary.'" Shane's second point is that "even if intelligent life were found elsewhere in the universe, it wouldn't necessarily present a problem for Christianity." "Before Star Trek or Star Wars existed, C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy. In it, he famously imagined alien races that never fell into sin. And in a few essays, Lewis wrestled with whether the existence of real-life extraterrestrials would threaten Christianity. According to Lewis, the Bible never says God created the vast cosmos only for humans. … For Lewis, intelligent aliens created and loved by God posed no problem, nor would they contradict the Bible. In the same essay, he cautioned that the Bible was not intended to satisfy our curiosity about such things but as an instruction manual for salvation. But he also warned that humans are in no position to tell God what He can and cannot do with His vast universe." And finally, Shane states that "the Bible teaches that there are other beings in the universe, but they're not what materialists expect, and they do not always come in peace." "Some biblical scholars, like the late Dr. Michael Heiser, have suggested that some alleged alien encounters may be the result of demonic activity and possession. After all, in 2 Corinthians 11:14 Paul warned that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. This means that Christians need not believe every story of alien abductions or close encounters, but we need not immediately dismiss them as jokes or conspiracy theories. Christianity teaches that we are not alone in the universe, that it is full of intelligent entities, both good and evil, and that all were created by and remain under the power of God. The existence of extraterrestrial life is still speculation, but the Christian worldview has more room for mysteries than our secular, materialist age does. It offers a bigger, more thorough, and more satisfying explanation for the universe." That was Shane Morris answering the question "What Does the Bible Say About Aliens?" To see the whole video and to share it with others, go to whatwouldyousay.org. Or, you can look up the What Would You Say? channel on YouTube. Be sure to subscribe to be notified each time a new video is released. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. ______ As a Breakpoint listener, you probably pick up on how the daily commentaries do the work of translation for you. We take a story or issue being discussed in our culture right now and model how to think through it from a Christian worldview. But, if you're interested in going deeper, in discovering how to develop

An unsung hero of the twentieth century was Sir Nicholas Winton. Winton secured visas to Britain for 700 mostly Jewish children in the late 1930s, saving them from being victims of the Nazi Holocaust. For decades, Winton's work went unnoticed for the simple fact that he didn't tell anyone. Decades later his secret was discovered and revealed to the world. In fact, there's an actual video clip online of the then-grown children thanking Winton. Now, a new movie to be released later this year, starring Anthony Hopkins, tells the story. Yet, all the early press releases and a number of articles fail to mention that the children who were saved were Jews, either ignoring that detail entirely or calling them "Central European." The children weren't in danger because of where they lived. They were in danger because of who they were. Whether because of antisemitism or a seeking not to offend, erasing Jews from a story about the Holocaust is itself evil. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Last week on NBC's Meet the Press, Joe Biden's deputy campaign manager, Quentin Fulks, was asked what the president's top priority would be if reelected. His reply: "First of all: Roe. … The president has been adamant that we need to restore Roe. It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago." According to Politico, President Biden's pro-choice agenda is "the strongest abortion rights platform of any general election candidate," and the president seems to sense that this is among the very few issues trending in his favor. Of a recent Texas Supreme Court case in which a woman was denied a medical exception for an abortion, the president declared: "No woman should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs. … This should never happen in America, period." Judging by the string of pro-life legislative defeats, most recently in the otherwise red Ohio and Virginia, many Americans agree with the president. One Politico analysis concluded, "When abortion rights are on the ballot, they win with voters across the political spectrum—though they don't always boost Democratic candidates on ballots advocating for them." In an imminent presidential election that promises to be especially contentious, the received wisdom among progressive candidates is this: Vow to preserve, at all costs, the so-called "right to choose," and it's likely that voters will choose me. Of course, this reveals as much about the rest of the progressive agenda as it does about "reproductive rights." Immigration and the southern border? Ukraine and Israel? Housing prices? Inflation? LGBTQ issues? The mental health crisis? These pressing issues are political liabilities for the president right now, so all the attention is on abortion. It is more than a little ironic to see the heightened emphasis on abortion, considering how often Christians were accused of being "one-issue" voters. Post-Roe, left-wing politicians are forced to be more honest about abortion's central role in their political project. And make no mistake, abortion is central not only to a progressive political agenda, but to the vision of "freedom" and selfhood this agenda has enshrined in American law and culture. In so many ways, abortion symbolizes the worldview in which autonomy and self-expression are the highest possible values. It's the logical endpoint of the pursuit of freedom from constraints, devoid of any notion of freedom for a created purpose. In this view, connections to other human beings—including the most intimate and dependent connection of all—are only worthwhile insofar as they help citizens achieve that vision of limitless autonomy. If such connections get in the way of our freedoms, we should be free to sever them, no matter who suffers. This deadly logic has become increasingly obvious in recent years as imaging technology in neo-natal care has made the humanity of preborn babies undeniable. Quite a few pro-abortion activists have responded by swallowing the proverbial poison pill and giving up on pretending children in the womb are "clumps of cells." So what if they're human? These activists retort. Their death is an acceptable price for women to maintain absolute control over their own bodies and futures! If our vision of freedom requires people to die, so be it. Still, abortion is heavily restricted or banned in 24 states, mostly as a direct result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, and there are a few hopeful signs that the public hasn't fully bought the logic of the extreme activists. For example, pro-abortion candidates, at least on the national level, still feel the need to pretend they find abortion distasteful. Last year, President Biden prefaced his support of abortion by saying, "I'm a practicing Catholic. I'm not big on abortion." Also, abortion is still typically defended in public, not as an absolute, on-demand right, but as a necessary accommodation in sad but rare circumstances like rape, incest, and the life of the mother. These "wedge" arguments are deeply flawed and do not change the fact that intentionally taking an innocent human life is always wrong. However, their continued use indicates that Americans aren't quite ready to stomach the unrestricted killing of little people we find inconvenient. Ultimately, the pro-life argument remains unchanged. The preborn are innocent human beings, made in God's image, and no one should be able to take their lives without cause. In fact, the most basic purpose of government is to protect its citizens' right to life, and if the government fails to do this, it is failing in the most basic way. Simply put, if killing babies in the womb is not wrong, the very concept of "rights" is a joke. The president's eagerness to make abortion his top reelection priority is deeply significant, and it would be a mistake to dismiss the statement as mere politics. This issue has taken on symbolic, mora

America is number one, again! Apparently, nearly one in four American kids grows up in a single-parent home, which is the highest rate in the world today. The U.K. is nearly keeping up at 21%, right behind our 23%. There are, at times, reasons a parent is absent, but as a nationwide reality it's unsustainable. These numbers are not the way for America to be exceptional. How is it that the U.S. and the U.K., two nations with such a long and intense history of Christian influence, have such a terrible record in this area? Both nations also have a long history of valuing and advancing freedom in a way that has blessed the world. However, when freedom devolves into a self-centered demand for absolute liberty, a freedom from any restraint and consequences, the blessings of true freedom are squandered, and the fruit left to our children is rotten, indeed. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Go to identityproject.tv. Breakpoint listeners can receive a special discount by using the code BREAKPOINT at checkout. _____ "In 2023, the Biden administration doubled down on its commitment to radical gender ideology. Federal agencies proposed a slew of regulations pushing the Biden administration's extreme pro-LGBT agenda in education, employment, and health care at the expense of children's interests and women's rights." That agenda, Rachel Morrison suggests in an article at The Federalist, will be back in 2024. She then identifies five priorities that we can expect to see from the Biden administration this year. For example, plans are already in the works within the Department of Education to impose gender ideology on school sports. Women and girls will be forced to compete with and against men and boys who identify as female. This will inevitably lead to a reduction in opportunities for females, in competing for championships and vying for college scholarships. It also leaves females vulnerable to injury and to violations of their privacy. Also, according to Morrison, we can expect the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to expand a policy that effectively erases women from one of the most distinctively womanly things imaginable, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In addition to avoid using the term woman to describe those who get pregnant, the EEOC "went so far as to use the plural pronouns 'they' and 'their' multiple times to refer to a singular employee who was pregnant, had a cesarean section, or experienced childbirth." This is an example of the power of language in smuggling through ideas. Also, Morrison expects that the Department of Health and Human Services will "impose incorrect pronouns, bathroom access, and so-called 'gender transitions' via disability discrimination law." "Under Section 504, 'gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments' are excluded from the definition of a qualifying disability. Yet, according to HHS, Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on gender dysphoria—which is a gender-identity disorder." Two other initiatives will hit closer to home for more people. First, the federal government is continuing its attempts to ban "non-affirming" potential parents from adoption and fostering, even calling such parents "abusive." Second, the EEOC, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the State Department have joined forces to enforce compliance on using preferred pronoun and opening bathrooms to people of the opposite sex. These rules carry weight for businesses and schools eager to stay on the good side of federal power. The drive to push these ideas is only popular with a small segment of the population, drawing support from some and opposition from others. The arguments behind such views cannot proceed on their own merits, so government enforcement is the only way forward. Though this goes under the guise of gender equality and "following the science," it takes the form of erasing (and debasing) women, denying women—especially school-aged girls—opportunities, and compromising the safety and privacy of females of all ages. This, for the sake of an ideology as new and fickle as teen fashions. Christians, of all people, must have the moral clarity to navigate strong-arm techniques. Today, the Colson Center is pleased to announce the launch of the Identity Project, the most comprehensive library of on-demand videos and resources addressing issues of identity, humanness, and sexuality available, all from a Judeo-Christian worldview. In collaboration with pastors, psychologists, sociologists, doctors, parents, and experts from organizations such as Alliance Defending Freedom and The Heritage Foundation, the Identity Project features teaching videos of various lengths that can be used in virtually every context: home, church, school, and with friends. In addition to countering the cultural lies about sex and identity, there are videos to resource parents, teachers, and leaders to help students embrace their identity as male and female, navigate challenges such as exposure to pornography, accept God's design for the body and for sexual morality, and deal with friends who think and live differently. Go to identityproject.tv. Breakpoint listeners can receive a special discount by using the code BREAKPOINT at checkout. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy Padgett. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

"Unapologetic antisemitism—whether the incidents are few or numerous—is a college phenomenon because of what we teach, and how our teachings are exploited by malign actors." That's a line you'd expect to hear from some right-wing activist or conservative think tank. Instead, it came from Harry Lewis, Harvard grad, Harvard professor, and former Harvard dean. In his article "Reaping What We Have Taught," Lewis took his own school to task: When complex social and political histories are oversimplified in our teachings as Manichaean struggles—between oppressed people and their oppressors, the powerless and the powerful, the just and the wicked—a veneer of academic respectability is applied to the ugly old stereotype of Jews as evil but deviously successful people. It's not easy in today's academic environment to point out the emperor has no clothes. Ideas have consequences, but so does courage. Let's hope others in ivory towers are willing to call out the dangerous ideas that control these institutions. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Chuck Colson often described the importance of the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 2009, Chuck, along with fellow authors Dr. Timothy George and Dr. Robert George, cited Dr. King in the Manhattan Declaration, a statement of conscience regarding life, marriage, and religious liberty in the United States. In 1955, after only a year of pastoring a church in Montgomery, Alabama, Dr. King was selected to lead an organization that boycotted public transportation. This was in response to the arrest of Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat for a white passenger on a bus. With a remarkable speaking ability and his advocacy of peaceful protest, Dr. King became a primary voice of the Civil Rights Movement. Chuck Colson noted three significant aspects of Dr. King's work. First, Dr. King was deeply influenced by his Christian faith. Though a series of personal failures are now known to be, sadly, serial, the principles from which he spoke and wrote were undeniably Christian. Reflecting on Dr. King's time in Birmingham, fighting against segregation and for equal job opportunities for African Americans, Chuck noted the following: During his Birmingham civil rights campaign, Dr. King required every participant to sign a pledge committing to do ten things. The first was to "meditate daily on the teachings and life of Jesus." Others included the expectation that all participants would "walk and talk in the manner of love, for God is love" and "pray daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free." To truly understand Martin Luther King, students must learn about his Christian faith. It was at the heart of what he did. Recently, sports commentator Chris Broussard and human rights expert Dr. Matt Daniels have produced a video series emphasizing the biblical principles that inspired Dr. King's life and work. Dr. Daniels is concerned that the Christian underpinnings of Dr. King's legacy are being lost. You can find this series "Share the Dream" at churchsource.org. In another commentary, Chuck Colson noted how Dr. King understood divine law as the source of human law. King's greatest demonstration of this was in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," something Chuck Colson often referred to as "the most important legal document of the twentieth century." Here's Chuck: King defended the transcendent source of the law's authority. In doing so he took a conservative Christian view of law. In fact, he was perhaps the most eloquent advocate of this viewpoint in his time, as, interestingly, Justice Clarence Thomas may be today. Writing from a jail cell, King declared that the code of justice is not man's law: It is God's law. Imagine a politician making such a comment today. Based on this belief, that God is the ultimate source of law, Dr. King insisted that any unjust law is, in fact, not a law at all. This was the basis of his view of civil disobedience, something that Christians not only could engage in, but must engage in. Here, again, is Chuck Colson describing King's view: "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." If it is true, as Chuck and his co-authors asserted in the Manhattan Declaration that "unjust laws degrade human beings," then Dr. King's teachings continue to have relevance for us today, not only on issues of race but on all kinds of areas in which our ideas are misaligned from our Creator. Take a moment today to read Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Trans rights are becoming the latest state-by-state issue dividing America. The Vatican releases a very pointed condemnation of surrogacy. And the Biden White House declares abortion is the number one issue in the upcoming presidential campaign. Recommendations Shadow of the Almighty by Elisabeth Elliot Being Elisabeth Elliot by Ellen Vaughn A Quiet Mind to Suffer With by John Andrew Bryant Segment 1: States vs. the Feds on Trans Policy How Democrats Set the Stage in 2023 for an LGBT Onslaught In 2024 Ohio House Overrides Governor Missouri's Ban on "Gender-Affirming Health Care" for minors can take effect next week, judge rules Segment 2: The Pope Condemns Surrogacy Francis Urges Ban on Surrogacy, calling it "Despicable" Segment 3: Biden Campaign Says Abortion #1 Issue Biden's Top Priority for a second term: abortion rights For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

After securing his team's place in the NFL playoffs, Texans' rookie quarterback C.J. Stroud was asked by a reporter to respond to the moment. In a brief statement that has now made rounds on social media, he expressed gratitude for the city of Houston, honor for his fellow players, and, most of all, praise to Christ for saving him and choosing him to be in this role. More than a typical generic thanks to God for a win, Stroud spoke with grace and humility, noting the Scriptures written on his wristbands after being asked. For all the stories of scandals and salary fights, there's still a strong remnant of faith in this corner of our too-often Christless society. For more stories like this, from a lifelong sports fan and strong believer, check out the new book In the Big Inning by John Strege, where he shares stories of people whose faith influenced their performance and their relationship with coaches, teammates, and fans. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Seven years ago this month, National Geographic published an issue that they now refer to as "historic." With a cover featuring a young boy with long pink hair and pink leggings, they announced a "Gender Revolution." The newsstand edition featured a different cover, a child and a collection of hip young people with identifying labels, such as "transgender female," "androgynous," and "bi-gender." Our perceptions of those who are transgender, these covers suggested, should not be simply men with a fetish. Rather, embracing new understandings of gender was about the kids. In addition to the articles explaining the emerging "scientific consensus" around these things, and why "gender" is "fluid" and should be thought of as distinct from one's biology, one article focused on the challenge of "toxic masculinity." Five others promised that rethinking gender would elevate women. The journalists accurately predicted that a revolution was occurring, even though some who read the issue (me included) thought their announcement premature. However, seven years later, it's clear that the gender revolution has done everything but elevate women. As child psychiatrist Miriam Grossman, author of Lost in Trans Nation, explains, the number of teen girls "with recent-onset discomfort with their sex is up 4,000 percent [emphasis added]." Especially vulnerable are girls with comorbidities, like autism, an association that even one of the National Geographic articles acknowledged. People who are autistic are three to six times more likely to not identify with their birth sex. Child psychiatrist Dr. Steven Grcevich, the founder and president of a ministry for families with hidden disabilities, called this "[t]he scandal that nobody is talking about … the vulnerability of kids with pre-existing medical conditions and autism and other developmental disabilities to this gender ideology." According to Dr. Grossman, this social contagion has been especially driven by social media, which has become a virtual "assembly line" for challenging girls to question their sense of self. Medical professionals jumped in, resulting in a trail of mutilated bodies, sterilization, bone-density loss, and other irreversible damage done. Women have been hurt in other ways too. According to the Telegraph, a male student recently attacked female students in a gender-neutral bathroom. In sports such as in jiujitsu and volleyball, girls have been overpowered and injured, not to mention the other issues of fairness of competition, scholarship opportunities, and privacy concerns. Seven years ago, the first article in the "historic" National Geographic issue promised that "science is helping us understand gender." In what became a frequently used "bait and switch" tactic, the article focused on the incredibly rare conditions called "intersex" or "disorders of sex development." Not mentioned in the article is something that Abigail Favale clarified in her book, that "[i]n 99.98% of these cases, sex is readily recognizable as unambiguously male or female." Instead, the author lumps physical disorders of sex development with the mental conditions of gender confusion, via a mishmash of edgy psychology and personal narratives, with one neuroscientist stirred in for good measure. The takeaway is clear: All that matters is what an individual feels on the inside. And yet, there are clear signs that this revolution is slowing. Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Norway have all drawn back from providing so-called "gender-affirming care" to young people because the science is not settled. Though the Biden Administration seems committed to advancing the revolution by force, in states such as Missouri and Ohio, lawmakers are taking definitive steps to protect children. The credit for slowing down what seemed to be an unstoppable train headed off the cliff goes to a coalition of unlikely allies: from the so-called "TERFs" (or "trans-exclusionary radical feminists") like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, to brave young people like Chloe Cole who have "de-transitioned," filed lawsuits, and testified before state legislatures, to Matt Walsh. Twenty-two states have now stopped or limited so-called "gender-affirming care" for minors. National Geographic may have thought that the "gender revolution" was inevitable, but it's time for an update on the cultural state-of-play. Next Tuesday, January 16, at 7 p.m. ET, the next free online Breakpoint Forum will provide "The Real Facts About Gender Ideology." Featured presenters are child psychiatrists, Dr. Miriam Grossman and Dr. Steven Grcevich. Sign up to join in live and ask questions, or to receive a link to access the recording. Go to breakpoint.org/forum. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Heather Peterson. 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

Anxious or depressed? Now you can download a digital therapist to your phone. According to The Wall Street Journal, "Chatbots that hold therapist-like conversations and wellness apps that deliver depression and other diagnoses or identify people at risk of self-harm are snowballing across employers' healthcare benefits." On one hand, given the erroneous beliefs of many human therapists, how bad could it be? It's kind of like driving in Colorado since the legalization of pot. Maybe self-driving Teslas are a safer bet. On the other hand, if in Canada, will the therapist AI bot on my phone help me or ask if I'd rather die? The underlying challenge of all AI is that it is programmed by fallible, biased humans. Whether it's the errors that creep into an automatic car or the assumptions driving the therapy bot, our human frailties will always be a part of even our best technologies. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Many Christian parents worry about how best to pass faith onto their children. Tragically, statistics suggest they are right to worry. In 2020, the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University found that just 2% of millennials, a generation now well into adulthood, have a biblical worldview. That is the lowest of any generation since surveys on the topic began. According to a Lifeway Research report , two-thirds of those who attend church as teenagers will drop out of church as adults. A significant aspect of the battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation has to do with ideas. Helping students think correctly about life and the world, God and themselves, would be hard enough if they weren't also facing such strong cultural headwinds. Simply put, many young people today leave the faith because they lack the necessary immunity from the bad ideas of our culture. Christian parents must not only present truth to their kids; they must find ways to immunize them against lies. Dr. William McGuire, a Yale psychology professor in the 1950s, suggested that bad ideas behave like viruses. Specifically, he thought that the more exposure one has to bad ideas in a controlled setting, the less likely they are to fall for those ideas later. McGuire performed several experiments in which he tried to convince subjects of a lie, that brushing teeth is bad for them. Unsurprisingly, those given no preparation for what they were about to hear were more easily convinced of the lie than those warned against a specific bad argument they would hear. However, the subgroups that were the easiest and the hardest to dupe were surprising. The group most vulnerable to falsehoods was not the one with zero preparation, but the one who had merely had the truth reinforced. In other words, the subjects most easily deceived were told things like, "You know brushing your teeth is good for you, right? You've been taught this since you were little. Trust us." When they subsequently heard arguments they never had before, this group felt sheltered and even deceived. The least vulnerable group were those who had not only been warned against a bad argument they would hear, but they were also taught how to respond. They were also warned they could face additional bad arguments and needed to be aware and vigilant. One thing we can learn from McGuire's experiment is that the method many Christian parents and churches use to pass on the faith—reinforcement without taking counter ideas seriously—is the one most vulnerable to failure. In fact, it can leave young people more vulnerable to lies, especially in high-pressure environments. It also means that we don't have to give kids all the answers, but they do need to be aware and ready to think for themselves. This requires we give them a framework, or a pattern, of responding to bad ideas thoughtfully and confidently. This is what Dr. Jeff Myers and the team at Summit Ministries has been doing with students for decades. Not only do they know how to immunize students against bad ideas by taking them seriously and preparing them to defend their faith, but Summit also helps students apply the truth claims of Christianity to every area of their life. The results of Summit training are both measurable and impressive. An independent 2020 survey of Summit alumni showed that, before attending a student conference, just 40% felt able to defend their faith against challenges. After attending, that number skyrocketed to 90%. Before Summit, 87% claimed a strong commitment to Christianity. Afterward, 96% did. And, almost 97% of Summit alumni indicate they are currently attending a church that holds to the truth of the Bible. Chuck Colson once called Summit Ministries "the gold standard" for training young adults in Christian worldview. I agree. In fact, I've personally witnessed the transformation that God brings through a Summit ministries two-week student conference. Held at Covenant College in Georgia and at the Summit headquarters in Manitou Springs, Colorado, young people are given a Christian worldview about topics like abortion, doubt and deconstruction, evolution, gender identity, God's existence, sexuality, and more. If you know a student who needs to attend a Summit conference this summer, visit summit.org/breakpoint, and use code BREAKPOINT24 to receive $200 off. The numbers speak for themselves. Passing on a Christian worldview to our kids requires much more than just telling them the truth. It requires us to help them love the truth and gain spiritual immunity against infectious bad ideas. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to colsoncenter.org. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Breakpoint was revised from one first published on 2.18.22.

A recent study highlighted by King's College London suggests that, wait for it, sex is a greater predictor of athletic performance than gender identity. The study found that in the "nonbinary" category of races, men outperformed women. The researchers were careful to note that not much research has been done in this area ... unless I'd add, you consider the history of sport. That we need this study reveals much more about our cultural moment than it does about runners. To say that men and women are different is to say something that was universally obvious until just yesterday. The created differences between men and women aren't a bug of our humanity but a feature, beautifully leading to differences in many areas of life. Women's sports should be protected because, if they aren't, men will continue to steal the place of women, not only on the winner's podium but in other areas of life too. Chromosomes, like ideas, have consequences. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

If you're interested in discovering how to develop the wisdom and skills needed to walk wisely in this cultural moment, then the Colson Fellows program might be for you. This ten-month program combines theological, spiritual, and worldview formation through a carefully curated combination of readings, daily devotions, live webinars, and monthly meetings with your peers. With both in-person and fully online offerings, you can choose the format that works best with your stage in life. Interested in learning more? You can explore the program and submit an application at colsonfellows.org. _______ A pitfall of the fallen human mind is how narratives shape our perception of the world, even outweighing facts and common sense. For example, nuclear power is one of the safest ways to generate electricity. According to the Our World in Data report, nuclear is 99.8% safer than coal in terms of deaths per unit of power. Yet because of three dramatic accidents and the press surrounding them—Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011—nuclear power is widely perceived as extraordinarily dangerous and in need of claustrophobic regulation. Similarly, a narrative pushed by many in the press aims at rendering something else radioactive: home schooling. As a Washington Post analysis found late last year, home schooling is America's fastest growing form of education. Around 2.7 million students are home-schooled in America today, up by about a million since before the pandemic. For Washington Post reporters, this is scary. One article described home schooling as a "largely unregulated practice once confined to the ideological fringe," whose rise in popularity is leading critics "to sound alarms." In it, an emeritus Harvard Law professor ominously warned, "Policymakers should think, 'Wow—this is a lot of kids.' We should worry about whether they're learning anything.'" A school board member from Florida echoed their concern: "Many of these parents don't have any understanding of education. The price will be very big to us, and to society. But that won't show up for a few years." In a Washington Post story from December 2, Peter Jamison recounted the tragic death of an 11-year-old California boy named Roman Lopez, from severe neglect and abuse. Though, as in most such cases, the story involved a broken and blended family—a factor children's rights activist Katy Faust points out is a consistent risk—according to The Washington Post, the thing to blame was that Lopez's stepmom said she was home schooling him. "Home education was an easy way to avoid the scrutiny of teachers, principals, guidance counselors," suggests Jamison. Yet, he admits, "Little research exists on the link between home schooling and child abuse. The few studies conducted in recent years have not shown that home-schooled children are at significantly greater risk of mistreatment than those who attend public, private or charter schools." And the Post wasn't finished. Nine days later, the Post devoted an article aimed at debunking the work of home-school researcher and advocate Brian Ray, who has long argued that home-schoolers out-perform their public-schooled peers. With little content to criticize Ray's methodology, the Post devoted space to quoting anti-home-schooling activists and Ray's aggrieved adult daughter. And then, three days after Christmas, the Post ran another article by Peter Jamison on the growing fear among home schooling families that state funding in the form of vouchers will come with increased government oversight. Leaving little doubt where he stands on the issue of state oversight, he threw in a story about a network of Nazi home-schoolers in Ohio. These articles reveal not only the biases of Washington Post reporters and their willingness to use scare stories in place of data, but they also expose crucial questions they are unwilling to ask, as well as assumptions about the role of parents and the state when it comes to education. To simultaneously note how home schooling has exploded in popularity but, in almost every article, refuse to ask why the popularity, is at best, a stunning lack of curiosity. If asked, I suspect the parents of the over two-and-a-half million home-schoolers in America, would say something about endless school closures during COVID, ideological indoctrination in public school classrooms, the fact that standardized test scores are at a 30-year low, and that administrators and school boards act and, at times, articulate that they know better, and parents should butt out. Perhaps many parents concluded they could do a better job teaching their kids. Perhaps they didn't think they should "butt out." Perhaps they are not comfortable with the lack of oversight in classrooms, and over teachers and school boards. Perhaps, they are skeptical of the "experts" who are "sounding alarms" about home schooling while ignoring the massive failures of the current state-run system. Ultimately, The Washington

Since Harvard president Claudine Gay resigned over accusations of plagiarism, many in the media have defended her. The Associated Press, for instance, tweeted: "Harvard's president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism." It's not clear how Gay's lack of academic integrity could be a conservative "weapon," but, according to Neil Shenvi, this willingness to ignore or defend plagiarism reflects how Critical Theory "has saturated our culture." In a thread on X, Shenvi documented how key texts of Critical Race Theory disparage objective truth, merit, and neutrality: "whether they know [it] or not, many progressives have imbibed [CRT] categories, its skepticism towards 'merit,' and its belief in the ubiquity of 'white supremacy culture.'" In other words, for many in the press and academia, plagiarism is no big deal if you're from an oppressed class and have progressive views. These ideas challenge the very idea of truth and must be clarified and confronted. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Seventeen hundred years ago this year, Constantine defeated his co-emperor Licinius, ending a series of civil wars and consolidating power as sole emperor of Rome. At the time, Christians saw this as the defeat of old pagan ways and the triumph of a new Christian vision of Rome. Constantine's turn to Christianity began before he abandoned Roman paganism. His children had been tutored by Lactantius, a Christian who opposed coerced worship and argued for religious liberty as long as a religious practice did not disrupt public order. Years later in 312, as Constantine went into battle against a rival, he claimed to have a vision of a symbol of Christ with the words, "in this sign, conquer." He had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields. Constantine won the battle and converted to Christianity. The following year, he issued the Edict of Milan, which declared religious liberty across the Empire in terms that Constantine had learned from Lactantius. Constantine has been a controversial figure throughout Church history. Both the genuineness of his conversion and his impact on the Church have been consistently questioned and scrutinized. Many think that Constantine's actions to tie the Church to the empire compromised the Gospel. Often, these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of what Constantine did and fail to consider what followed from the legalization of Christianity. The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity, along with other religions. It did not declare Christianity the official imperial religion. Though Constantine's promotion of Christianity made it more popular, it was not named the imperial religion until Emperor Theodosius I in 380. Even then, Theodosius did not suppress paganism. Despite what you may have read online or seen in The Da Vinci Code movie, Constantine did not dictate doctrine to the Church. When he called the Council of Nicaea in 325 to deal with the question of the nature of Christ, a controversy that was threatening to tear the Church apart, he was performing a traditional function of Roman emperors who often acted as mediators in religious conflicts. Despite claims to the contrary, neither Constantine nor the Council of Nicaea had anything to do with the formation of the canon of Scripture. Constantine did not control the discussion at Nicaea, nor did he dictate the outcome. And even if he had tried, many bishops who attended the council had been tortured by his predecessor Diocletian. If they didn't compromise their faith then, it is silly to assume they would roll over for Constantine. The most direct result of Constantine's conversion was the end of the persecution, torture, and execution of Christians. Obviously, this was welcomed by Christians in his day, but it should also be recognized as a historical good. The Edict of Milan also furthered Christian evangelism. Prior to Constantine, the Gospel had spread to India, Armenia, and Persia, and then from Persia across Central Asia into China by the early 600s. The legalization of Christianity led to churches being founded across the Roman Empire and missionaries sent to regions outside the empire. St. Patrick was a Romanized Briton who grew up as a Christian and brought the Gospel to Ireland. In the fifth century, a Syrian Christian named Frumentius converted the king of Axum in modern Ethiopia. Together, they evangelized that kingdom. Cyril and Methodius brought the Gospel to the Slavic people of Central and Eastern Europe in the ninth century. The evangelization of these regions can be traced to the actions of Constantine. Of course, the legalization of Christianity set up a tug-of-war between Church and state. Because the faith had existed as an illegal and sporadically persecuted minority religion for centuries, the Church functioned fully independent of the state. With Constantine came new questions, such as, what properly belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God? That question remains a central issue of Western political thought today. Even in view of the historical difficulties that emerged from his conversion, we can thank God for Constantine and for the freedom for faith and the Gospel he established. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson promised to not eliminate Chicago's selective-enrollment public schools, which require entry by test and target high-achieving students. However, in the name of "equity," he is now proposing ending the selective process to get them in. Decades ago, in an essay called "Democratic Education," C.S. Lewis described why this understanding of "equity" is doomed to fail: "[A]n education which gave the able and diligent boys no advantage over the stupid and idle ones, would be in one sense democratic. ... Then no boy, and no boy's parents, need feel inferior. An education on those lines will be pleasing to democratic feelings. It will have repaired the inequalities of nature. But it is quite another question whether it will breed a democratic nation which can survive, or even one whose survival is desirable. Truth is not democratic. ... Political democracy is doomed if it tries to extend its demand for equality into these higher spheres. Ethical, intellectual, or aesthetic democracy is death." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

It's not uncommon to hear artificial intelligence described as a new "tool" that extends and expands our technological capabilities. Already there are thousands of ways people are utilizing artificial intelligence. All tools help accomplish a task more easily or efficiently. Some tools, however, have the potential to change the task at a fundamental level. This is among the challenges presented by AI. If in the end it is not clear what AI is helping us to achieve more efficiently, this emerging technology will be easily abused. AI's potential impact on education is a prime example. Since the days of Socrates, the goal of education was not only for students to gain knowledge but also the wisdom and experience to use that knowledge well. Whether the class texts appeared on scrolls or screens mattered little. Learning remained the goal, regardless of the tools used. In a recent article at The Hill, English professor Mark Massaro described a "wave" of chatbot cheating now making it nearly impossible to grade assignments or to know whether students even complete them. He has received essays written entirely by AI, complete with fake citations and statistics but meticulously formatted to appear legitimate. In addition to hurting the dishonest students who aren't learning anything, attempts to flag AI-generated assignments, a process often powered by AI, have the potential to yield false positives that bring honest students under suspicion. Some professors are attempting to make peace with the technology, encouraging students to use AI-generated "scaffolding" to construct their essays. However, this is kind of like legalizing drugs: There's little evidence it will cut down on abuse. Consider also the recent flood of fake news produced by AI. In an article in The Washington Post, Pranshu Verma reported that "since May, websites hosting AI-created false articles have increased by more than 1,000 percent." According to one AI researcher, "Some of these sites are generating hundreds if not thousands of articles a day. … This is why we call it the next great misinformation superspreader." Sometimes, this faux journalism appears among otherwise legitimate articles. Often, the technology is used by publications to cut corners and feed the content machine. However, it can have sinister consequences. Of course, there's no sense in trying to put the AI genie back in a bottle. For better or worse, the technology is here to stay. We must develop an ability to evaluate its legitimate uses from its illegitimate uses. In other words, we must know what AI is for, before experimenting with what it can do. That will require first knowing what human beings are for. For example, Genesis is clear (and research confirms) that human beings were made to work. After the fall, toil "by the sweat of your brow" is a part of work. The best human inventions throughout history are the tools that reduce needless toil, blunt the effects of the curse, and restore some dignity to those who work. We should ask whether a given application of AI helps achieve worthy human goals—for instance, teaching students or accurately reporting news—or if it offers shady shortcuts and clickbait instead. Does it restore dignity to human work, or will it leave us like the squashy passengers of the ship in Pixar's Wall-E—coddled, fed, entertained, and utterly useless? Perhaps most importantly, we must govern what AI is doing to our relationships. Already, our most impressive human inventions—such as the printing press, the telephone, and the internet—facilitated more rapid and accurate human communication, but they also left us more isolated and disconnected from those closest to us. Obviously, artificial intelligence carries an even greater capacity to replace human communication and relationships (for example, chatbots and AI girlfriends). In a sense, the most important questions as we enter the age of AI are not new. We must ask, what are humans for? And, how can we love one another well? These questions won't easily untangle every ethical dilemma, but they can help distinguish between tools designed to fulfill the creation mandate and technologies designed to rewrite it. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Harvard president Claudine Gay steps down over charges of plagiarism. John and Maria talk about the fallout for higher education. They also discuss the ongoing attacks on Christians in Nigeria and the expectation that billions will vote worldwide in 2024. Recommendations The New Book of Christian Martyrs by Johnnie Moore and Jerry Pattengale ICON: International Committee on Nigeria Bethel McGrew on Substack Segment 1: Claudine Gay Resigns from Harvard Claudine Gay hit with six new charges of plagiarism Harvard's Bundy Standard The Mind Virus is Finally Breaking Segment 2: Christian Massacre in Nigeria Christmas Massacres Challenge Secular Explanations of Nigeria Conflict Nigeria Massacre Sees Over 100 Christians Dead Segment 3: World Elections in 2024 Opinion: 2024 will be the biggest voting year in world history. Can democracy survive it? For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

According to the Pew Research Center, 2023 marked a record high of Americans over 40 who have never been married. In a related study earlier in the year, a majority of Americans said that an enjoyable career and friendships were at the top of the list of things that would provide a "fulfilling life," but thought that having children or being married was "not too or not at all important." This while plenty of other studies are showing that these expectations are not yielding the expected results. American happiness is at an all-time low and the most consistently happy people in the U.S. are the married ones. Meanwhile, job satisfaction varies wildly based on income, age, and sense of meaningful contribution. Of course, marriage alone cannot make the unhappy happy or the unfulfilled fulfilled, but there's a clear picture in these numbers. Those who live for more than themselves tend to find more satisfaction and more happiness. It's as if we were made that way. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Two hundred and thirty-one years ago this month, King Louis XVI of France lost his head. His execution by guillotine was a precursor of the Reign of Terror, a 10-month period from 1793 to 1794 when French Revolutionaries executed nearly 17,000 of their countrymen. Tens of thousands more died in prison or were murdered without a trial. The French Revolution, one of history's most profound examples of the power of ideas, erupted out of the Enlightenment. In the mid-eighteenth century, philosophers such as Voltaire and Diderot effectively argued that human reason and scientific inquiry, rather than religion, were the true path to progress and greater freedom. Diderot's hostility to Christianity also spilled over into his views of the nobility. After all, if there were no God then King Louis could not have been "divinely appointed." And if the king had no sacred claim to power, he had no right to live in outrageous luxury at Versailles while the French people were living in famine. Some took these ideas further than others. In 1789, a few days before a mob stormed the Bastille prison in Paris, one of its longtime prisoners was transferred to a mental asylum. In his cell, he left a manuscript that would eventually be published under the title 120 Days of Sodom. The author was the infamous Marquis de Sade. De Sade thought his novel to be the "most impure tale ever written." It depicted graphic scenes of sexual violence, torture, and murder. It was also, to the utter horror of de Sade's contemporaries and modern historians, semi-autobiographical. De Sade spent most of his life in prison or mental asylums because of his crimes against vulnerable young women and men, and his name is the source of our modern word "sadism." More than an awful story, his book was a philosophical proposal. While Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire and Diderot denied the existence of God, they still defended many distinctly Christian virtues, including the goodness of self-sacrifice and the dignity of the poor. De Sade, on the other hand, did not share these philosophical inconsistencies. According to author and pastor Andrew Wilson in his book Remaking the World: How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West, de Sade simply had "no time" for Christian morality: "[De Sade] thought we should admit that there is no natural basis whatsoever for loving other people, forgiving them, or showing compassion. 'The doctrine of loving one's neighbor is a fantasy that we owe to Christianity and not to Nature,' [de Sade] explained. Virtue, likewise, is 'just a way of behaving that varies according to climate and consequently has nothing real about it.'" A century after de Sade, another philosopher described in stark clarity what a world without God would look like. In his "Parable of the Madman," Friedrich Nietzsche described the death of God as "unchaining this earth from its sun." In terms of personal morality, the Marquis de Sade got there first. Like Nietzsche, he was willing to explore the realities of his evil ideas in practice. Though even the most radical sexual revolutionaries today would hesitate to claim de Sade as their intellectual forefather, they must. Before Darwin, he embraced a world where the strongest survive and most brutal thrive. Before the sexual revolution, he explored sex as only a means of pleasure, with no regard for the dignity of people or their bodies. His disgusting depictions of torture foreshadowed the horrifying medical experiments that would be performed by the Nazis in the twentieth century. His open hatred for Christianity (he called Jesus "a scoundrel, a lecher, a showman who performed crude tricks") anticipated an argument common today that Christianity is not only anti-intellectual and anti-rational, but plain evil. For de Sade, freedom was pure license without the constraints or consequences of morality or even, for that matter, biology. This is only thinkable in a world without God, and therefore a world without any design or moral order. Those who argue for such a world have neither cause nor moral means by which to denounce the despicable behavior of de Sade or, for that matter, of Jeffrey Epstein and the men exposed when court documents were unsealed earlier this week. Thankfully, despite the terrible ideas of the Enlightenment and their consequences, the world remains securely chained to its Sun. In the real world, the freedom to be fully human is grounded in the way God made us. Thus, true freedom is always hemmed in by virtue. Among the many benefits of this worldview is the ability to fiercely repudiate the degeneracy of the Marquis de Sade, and to do so from sound philosophical footing. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, the University of Washington offered a girls' volleyball scholarship to a 16-year-old boy. Swimmer Riley Gaines, perhaps the nation's top advocate for female athletes, broke the news. In response, UW allegedly rescinded the scholarship offer, claiming that they didn't know the recipient was male. Some parents of girls who play in the same high school league as the boy have said that their daughters didn't realize they were being forced to compete against a male until matches were underway. Of course, they shouldn't have to think about it, and parents shouldn't have to worry about it either. It's the school's job, along with those tasked with governing school sports, to ensure fair competition and reasonable safety, and to protect the privacy of minors in spaces like locker rooms. But since many aren't doing that job, like Ohio's governor, parents have to be vigilant, ask the hard and awkward questions, and make the tough decisions. After all, it's only the new normal if everyone goes along. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently in Vox, journalist Rachel Cohen attempted to explain how "millennials learned to dread motherhood." Noting the troubling drop in global fertility rates, Cohen spoke to dozens of women about whether they hoped to become or hoped to avoid becoming moms. "Today, the question of whether to have kids generates anxiety far more intense than your garden-variety ambivalence. For too many, it inspires dread. I know some women who have decided to forgo motherhood altogether—not out of an empowered certainty that they want to remain child-free, but because the alternative seems impossibly daunting. Others are still choosing motherhood, but with profound apprehension that it will require them to sacrifice everything that brings them pleasure. " At least part of the dynamic at work here is cultural. Technology and evolving social norms have created the impression that the choice to become parents is simply one among many lifestyle "choices" we make, such as whether to buy or rent, or whether or not to get a dog. And like those choices, we make the choice to have children or not based on convenience, enjoyment, and personal fulfillment. It's no surprise, then, that motherhood often lands on the losing side of that evaluation. This narrative has roots in second-wave feminism. Unlike early feminism, which was largely about correcting social injustices in pursuit of equal rights for women, second- and especially third-wave feminism went further, presuming that a woman's value is found entirely in how she compares to and competes with men. In the process, women's fertility was, in many ways, pathologized, treated as a bug rather than a feature of being a woman. Rather than liberating women as promised, however, one of the consequences of this brand of feminism is fear. Women have been led to believe that having children will destroy the possibility of fulfillment and happiness. This narrative is so dominant that many women feel stigma from finding any joy in motherhood. Cohen described as much in a remarkable section of her Vox piece: "When I started asking women about their experiences as mothers, I was startled by the number who sheepishly admitted, and only after being pressed, that they had pretty equitable arrangements with their partners, and even loved being moms, but were unlikely to say any of that publicly. Doing so could seem insensitive to those whose experiences were not as positive." One of the implications is that some women just won't be able to endure motherhood. It's an example of what's been called "the tyranny of low expectations." The fear becomes self-fulfilling, especially when "enjoying" the moment-to-moment experience of motherhood is the only (or at least the most important) indicator that having children was the "right choice." Of course, this whole narrative falls apart if children are not merely lifestyle choices like houses or pets. The very experience of motherhood seems to suggest as much. According to a 2022 Pew research study, 80% of parents say having children is enjoyable and rewarding. And, strangely enough, those most likely to rate parenthood highly were low-income parents. If marriage and having children is seen as merely a means to pleasure, we will be disappointed when these things are difficult, painful, or boring, as they often are. On the other hand, if life has meaning beyond comfort and pleasure, then something can be difficult and worth pursuing at the same time. Interestingly, the Vox piece about motherhood is conspicuously silent about a factor crucial to the experience of childbearing: marriage. Cohen writes as if having children is a "choice" laid squarely at the feet of women alone, as if marriage and babies have nothing to do with each other. But culture-wide decline in marriage explains some of her peers' apprehension. The American Family Survey regularly finds that married moms are among the happiest people in the country, reporting vastly higher rates of satisfaction and much lower rates of loneliness. Just as the ability to bear children is part of God's design for women, having children is an inherent part of God's design for marriage. Pursuing children outside of that design will be more painful and difficult than it was meant to be. Anyone who feels childbearing is too daunting to choose should look to the Psalmist's promise to "[d]elight [ourselves] in the Lord, and he will give [us] the desires of [our] heart." They may find that, in His grace, God gives them the grace to desire children after all. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A year after a middle school in Minnesota banned phones, the principal is reporting students are "happy." Phone-related problems before the ban included "interactions of bullying, of setting up fights, (and) the gambit of a lot of the negative things ..." but that's all changed. One parent says that because of banning phones, her son "is thriving and really focused and doing really well." He even "[p]articipates in class discussions." As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt said on X, "What parent would expose their child to so many documented risks from any other consumer product?" So, why do we allow it with phones? Haidt recommends "giving only flip phones before high school and delaying the opening of social media accounts until 16." Another expert on the impact of social media is Jean Twenge. She has yet to grant social media to her 16-year-old daughter. Look—the data has never been clearer. Regulate your kids' phones and keep them off social media as long as possible. They'll thank you for it someday. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In what has become a dark annual tradition, Islamic militants in Nigeria carried out targeted attacks on Christians on Christmas Eve. Up to 200 are confirmed dead and about 300 injured in the attacks that were carried out in 20 villages across the north-central state of Plateau. Islamic militants have carried out similar Christmas attacks for at least the last four years. The population of Nigeria is almost evenly divided between Muslims and Christians, a religious split that largely follows geographic lines. The northern part of the country is predominantly Muslim, and the eastern and southern parts heavily Christian. The middle of the country, sometimes called the "Middle Belt," is ethnically and religiously diverse. Not surprisingly, the threat to Christians originated from the Islamic north, though it has now spread to southern regions. Three groups are responsible for what Open Doors has called a campaign of "religious cleansing" against Christians. Boko Haram, one of the most notorious Islamist terrorist groups in the world, is responsible for killing thousands of Christians and displacing countless more since violence began to escalate in 2015. In recent years, their ruthlessness has been matched by a rival group, the Islamic State in West Africa. As dangerous as these explicitly Islamist groups are, the Fulani herdsmen are worse. Because the Fulani territory in north Nigeria is suffering from a long-term drought, the Fulani are moving south to access water. To take land and drive out Christians, the herdsmen have raided and burned villages, slaughtered villagers, destroyed crops, and engaged in a host of other atrocities. It was the Fulani who carried out this year's Christmas attacks. For years, the Nigerian government has denied the obvious religious dimensions of the Fulani herdsmen, instead claiming it to be a conflict between famers and herders. Former President Muhammadu Buhari is a Fulani. Though he attempted to address some of the economic issues that drive Fulani militancy, he consistently denied that religion played any role in the conflict, pointing out that Muslim villages were also raided. However, the vast majority of attacks were committed against Christians, including Christians in churches on Christmas and Easter. In fact, the Fulani's history of Islamic militancy dates back to the late 17th century. Denying the religious dimensions of these attacks is pure propaganda, according to the governor of the state of Plateau, Caleb Mutfwang. In a New Year's broadcast, he called for a week of mourning to begin 2024, referring to the recent killings as a "Christmas genocide" and acknowledging the over 400 that were killed just between April and June of 2023. "These unprovoked and simultaneous attacks in different villages were clearly premeditated and coordinated. These series of attacks on our people are a clear case of criminality, insurgency and terrorism and must be seen and handled in that manner if we must succeed in halting this wanton destruction of lives and property. For the avoidance of doubt, it is a misrepresentation of facts to describe these needless and unprovoked attacks on our people as a Farmer-Herder clash, as has always been the traditional narrative. Let us call a spade a spade; this is simple genocide!" Indeed, what has happened to Nigerian Christians over the past decade and more meets the established international standards for the label genocide. And yet, as Johnnie Moore noted on X, "the @StateDept is reticent to speculate on the motive of the perpetrators of a massacre of 200 Christians in Nigeria on Christmas, in an area rife with terrorists." It is highly suspect whether Nigerian Christians should expect help from Nigeria's current president, who was sworn into office last May. Not only is Bola Ahmed Tinubu a Muslim, but he also broke with the tradition of selecting a Christian as vice president. Given the nation's top two officeholders are Muslim, many are understandably skeptical of the president's condemnation of the Plateau state attacks, as well as his promise that "the envoys of death, pain, and sorrow responsible for these acts will not escape justice." Fueling the skepticism could be that in mid-December President Tinubu referred to his predecessor as "an icon of truth, justice, and patriotism." He then followed the habit of his predecessor in not acknowledging any religious motivation for the Christmas Day attacks. Even if everyone else does, Christians must not forget the spiritual root of this conflict. For over a century, God has been moving and the Church has been expanding across Africa. In 1900, there were only 9.64 million Christians on the continent. Today there are over 692 million, and they are among the most committed Christians in the world. It is not surprising that Satan would inspire their ongoing persecution. For our Nigerian brothers and sisters, we can fight on two fronts. First, we must continue to lobby our government on their behalf

Christian faithfulness, especially at a time of cultural chaos, isn't really about trying to do great things for God. In a tweet, my friend Katy Faust of Them Before Us explained: "Afraid for the nation? Buy a house. Plant a garden. Get married. Have lots of babies. Help your children marry well, be great grandparents. You needn't run for office, start a podcast or lead a thinktank. The most powerful & countercultural work happens in your home." Amen. She then cited Jeremiah 29:5-6, in which God told the exiles of Judah to "build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce." It can be easy to equate "greatness" with fame or followers or something loud and big. But God asks for faithfulness in whatever our hand finds to do. That was true for the exiles in Babylon, and it's still true today. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was first published 12.22.22.

Each of the Apostle Paul's letters to different first-century churches contains robust explanations of complex theological concepts, such as justification, sanctification, the connection between faith and works, and the role of Jewish law after Christ. In more than a few places, however, Paul drops punchy and simple statements such as, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). That's straightforward. Or how about this one: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8). That's pretty clear, too. Obviously, these statements have clear implications for husbands and fathers who abandon their spouses or children, or who fail to do what is necessary to provide for them. Today, these would also seem to indict those who pressure women into aborting a child they fathered; or those who, through IVF, create multiple embryos only to abandon some of them in freezers; or those who pressure aging parents into physician-assisted suicide. The implications of Paul's blunt and powerful statement about the responsibilities we have to those who depend on us are vast. For example, I recently asked a Colson Fellow who has taught personal finance for years at a Christian college how he integrates worldview into that class. His answer was simple: stewardship. And, then he quoted Paul's clear, pithy statement about who is worse than an infidel. Few words better encapsulate what it means to be created in the image of God than stewardship. Human beings were created by God to steward the world He made. He charged our first parents with tending His garden. Though Sin made that task more difficult, it hasn't altered His original command to His image bearers to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." In fact, this was how He intended for us to rule benevolently and wisely over all the works of God's hands. It is in this concept of stewardship that we find the key to understanding Paul's blunt statement. It's also in this concept that the task of caring for this world is even possible, as finite people with finite resources and maybe a few hungry mouths to feed at home. Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve's home was a garden that God planted for them "in the east." This was more than a sacred flower bed. It was a sanctuary, a meeting place between God and man, and the embryonic form of the garden city that is described as complete in Revelation. The first man and woman weren't supposed to sit idly around in this garden. They were given work to do, work that would eventually involve the entire world. As theologian G.K. Beale explains, "Adam and his progeny were to expand Eden's borders until they circumscribed the earth so God's glory would thus be reflected throughout the whole world through his image-bearers." In other words, God gave humans a starting point, a home base, a focal point where their responsibilities as stewards began. They could not start with the whole world, or they never would have started. This is still true today. No matter our roles, responsibilities, or calling, we are most responsible for the people, things, and places closest to us. This principle is often called "subsidiarity" and is the basis of sound thinking on family, finances, economics, government, and much more. The reason a person who fails to care for the members of his household is "worse than an unbeliever" is that these are the people closest to him, to whom he is most responsible. As my friend pointed out, the heart of what it means to be a good manager of family finances, a good steward of church resources, a responsible leader for a Christian college, or a good city, state, or nation is to enable care for those closest. Proximity directs priority. If true, subsidiarity means that the progressive strategies for child-rearing, welfare, healthcare, and other issues that abstract responsibility back to "society" are dangerously backward. The duties in these areas lie primarily with those closest to the needs. The concepts of stewardship and proximity also mean that leading people into a mess and then abandoning them is wrong, and reflects unbelief. This would apply to parents who create and abandon excess embryos (or "donate" their gametes), as well as to Christian colleges that sell teenagers enormous amounts of debt, have them marry each other, and then send them off to be youth pastors. It's not good stewardship, and to paraphrase Paul, potentially leaves these Christian young people in infidel territory. Ultimately, this comes back to what St. Augustine called "rightly ordered loves." It's as impossible to love all people, all families, and all nations as it was for Adam to tend the whole Earth by himself. Love in the abstract is not actually love. We must love and care for particular people in particular places, and according to one of Paul's least difficult-to-understand teachi

Recently, scholars announced another breakthrough discovery relating to Israel's King David. The Mesha Stele, a nearly 3,000-year-old Moabite artifact, has long divided historians, particularly a section that some claim refers to Moab's victory over "the House of David" and others think references the Moabite King Balak. Recently, however, researchers André Lemaire and Jean-Philippe Delorme examined composite images of both the stele and a paper "mask" once used to preserve it. Three deeply faded letters, they argue in a recent paper, conclusively make the case for "House of David." Much like other discoveries, such as the Tel Dan Inscription, the John Rylands Papyrus, and the discovery of the Pool of Siloam, archaeology continues to point to one of the Bible's distinctives. It's not merely a religious book. It's an account of human history, with an amazing amount of detail. It's not just "true for you but not for me." In fact, the more we dig, the more we learn that it matches reality. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was originally published on January 26, 2023.

This Breakpoint was originally published on February 21, 2023. ___ Two weeks ago, what started as a routine (and, according to the preacher, "lackluster") chapel service at Asbury University became something remarkable. Instead of heading off to classes, students stayed to pray and worship. Services have continued ever since, with people traveling from near and far to join in prayer, repentance, and song. What is being called a "revival" by some and an "awakening" by others has now spread to other Christian colleges. The past few days echo the revivals that were experienced in the recent past on other Christian college campuses, including one at Wheaton College in 1995, and those at Asbury in 1970 and 1950. In each case, there were seemingly spontaneous expressions from students of prayer, confession, and praise. The revivals of the past are an indelible part of Asbury's historical memory, and many who experienced the 1970 revival have prayed ever since for it to happen again. Revivals have been, in fact, a consistent, distinct feature of American religious life since before our nation's founding. The First Great Awakening, in the early 1700s, was part of a larger, trans-Atlantic spiritual renewal centered on personal conversion, an emphasis that had a transformative effect on the emerging American consciousness. The idea that a genuinely converted, common ploughboy was spiritually ahead of an unconverted bishop contributed to a growing anti-hierarchical attitude in the colonies. This, in time, contributed to a growing anti-monarchial mood, setting the stage for revolution. The Second Great Awakening, which swept the nation decades later, coupled a similar focus on conversion with postmillennial eschatology. Among the results was a drive for social reform. Abolitionism, temperance, and efforts against prostitution became calling cards of what came to be known as evangelicalism. Other revivals followed, and most included an added focus on foreign missions. The Prayer Meeting, or Businessmen's Revival, of the 1850s was followed by revivals in the camps of both armies during the Civil War, the urban efforts and revival preaching of D.L. Moody of the 1870s and 80s, and the theatrics of Billy Sunday's revivals at the turn of the century. Soon after came the Azusa Street Revival in California, which led to a massive growth of Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement worldwide, and then eventually led to the Jesus People of the 1970s. And those are only the "big" ones. Simply put, revivalism, with a focus on a personal faith with public implications, dramatically shaped American life and culture and is a major reason that America remained more religious than Europe for so long. At the same time, revivals and revivalism have always faced a good deal of criticism, including charges of excess, hyper-emotionalism, manufactured techniques, and anti-intellectualism. Jonathan Edwards, a major figure of the First Great Awakening, understood the dangers inherent to revivalist fervor, but he also believed in these unusual times when the Holy Spirit moved among a people. Perhaps America's greatest intellectual, Edwards prayed and worked toward revival, and he offered criteria for evaluating it. According to Edwards, a true work of the Holy Spirit elevates Christ, opposes sin and Satan, prizes the Bible, distinguishes truth from error, and manifests love. He also understood that in the midst of such a movement, there would be things to oppose as well. All of this is helpful as we try to grasp what has happened at Asbury, and now beyond, over these last two weeks. We'd do well to remember Jesus' warning that there will be tares among the wheat, and that the remarkable times in which the power of God and goodness of Christ are made manifest are ways in which God graciously prepares us for life off of the mountaintops. Though, like Peter and John, we may want to remain in such times and places, He will eventually have work for us to do elsewhere. Critics would do well to recall the history of God working through awakenings and revival, both in this nation and elsewhere, as well as the faithful who sincerely believe that God has answered their years of praying for revival to return to Asbury. What we can all be sure of (and thankful for!) is that God is constantly at work in His world, sometimes in extraordinary but most often in "ordinary" ways. God is constantly speaking through His world, through His Word, and ultimately, in His Son. May we have the ears to hear Him. And may He grant us the hearts to pray that an awareness of sin and a passion for God and His people would grow in the hearts of these students, long after the mountaintop high of the revival has faded in their memory. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

On our last program of the year, John and Maria talk about the most important cultural moments of 2023. If Breakpoint has helped you think clearly in 2023 about this cultural moment, you can support the work at colsoncenter.org/give. Recommendations The Colson Fellows Program What Would You Say? Videos Segment 1: The Attack on Israel The Attack on Israel Barbaric Norms: Hamas, Israel, and Just War Israel, Hamas, and Just War: Interviews with Joel Rosenberg and Eric Patterson Just War Doctrine, Israel, and Hamas Antisemitism at America's Elite Universities, Surrogacy for Gay Couples, and Canada Tries to Hide its Suicide Numbers Segment 2: Top Stories of 2023 Unconditional Conference, Leisure and American Education, and the Crisis of Trust in Science Pope Francis Announces "Radical Change in Vatican Policy" AI Chatbots Challenge What's Real ChatGPT, Consciousness, and the Human Mind UFOs and the Power of Worldview Former Muslim and Atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali Claims to be Christian and the Growth of Homeschooling Tim Keller: Pastor, Author, Theologian Passing of Henry Kissinger, Colleague of Chuck Colson Notable Deaths: Al Quie and Alice Noebel; Also, The Canadian Boarding School Segment 3: Important Cultural Artifacts of 2023 Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible's Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In response to Critical Race Theory, Tennessee lawmakers have introduced a list of "divisive concepts," which, under a law passed last year, are prohibited from being taught on college campuses. The banned concepts include ideas that cause an individual to feel discomfort, guilt, or another form of psychological distress because of their race or sex, or the idea that the state of Tennessee or the United States of America is inherently racist or sexist. Students can report professors for corrective action. Princeton University's Robert P. George tweeted in response that the best way to counter bad ideas at the university level is to expose them, not ban them: "The right strategy is creating vibrant, intellectually serious new departments & programs." Especially at the college level, we need more discussion and serious debate of ideas, not less. Young adults should be taught how to recognize, confront, and critique bad thinking, especially influential bad thinking. As C.S. Lewis said, "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was originally published on April 21, 2023.

Saint Augustine famously observed that the human heart is restless until its rest is found in God. That applies not only to individuals but also to cultures and entire generations. Practically speaking, this "restlessness" can take many forms, including an unprecedented mental health crisis. The recent and much talked about report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes precisely that. As a CDC spokeswoman bluntly stated, "young people"—especially young women—"are in crisis." An article in The New York Times summarized, "Nearly three in five teenage girls felt persistent sadness in 2021 … and one in three girls seriously considered attempting suicide." Jonathan Haidt, author of The Coddling of the American Mind, painted an even starker picture: "We are now 11 years into the largest epidemic of adolescent mental illness ever recorded." The timing of this unprecedented outbreak of anxiety, depression and other mental health problems, Haidt points out, corresponds suspiciously with the rise of smartphones and social media apps. This technology led to a culture-wide exchange of what he calls a "play-based childhood" for a "screen-based" one. That exchange likely helped create a generation with fragile psyches unable to deal with life's challenges. A reason that teen girls are especially hard-hit in this crisis is they spend more time on social media platforms and websites that engender social and body anxiety. However, political views also predict psychological issues. Using Pew Research's American Trends Panel, Haidt demonstrates that liberal leanings predict the worst mental health outcomes. In fact, a majority of self-identified progressive women in Generation Z report that they have been diagnosed with a mental health condition. Age, sex, and politics are not the only predictors of trouble. Using the same set of data, political scientist and pastor Ryan Burge suggests that religious commitment is another important factor. Those who rarely or never attend religious services suffer worse mental health than those who attend regularly or weekly. Altogether, and controlling for economics and education, Americans under 25 are doing very badly when it comes to mental health. Those suffering the worst are young, female, liberal, and secular. For them, brokenness is, incredibly, the norm. On the other hand, the apparent insulating effect of religious faith and conservative philosophy is fascinating. Highly religious people are, in fact, more likely than their secular peers to describe themselves as "very happy." One explanation for this is the proven positive social effects of religious belonging, including higher occurrences of stable, loving family relationships. For example, in 2020, the Institute for Family Studies reported that those who attend church regularly are more likely to get married than their nonreligious neighbors and less likely to divorce. Still, it's worth considering whether the social benefits of religious commitment have something to do with the belief itself. Does an active faith in God reduce the impact of the mental health crisis on young people? Does a lack of religious faith leave others more vulnerable to it? Though a tough question to answer via social science, St. Augustine would say "yes." Despite his lack of familiarity with Gen Z, he would speak of their "restless hearts" seeking in politics, gender identity, and self-expression what can only be found in a relationship with our Maker. In the face of Gen Z's mental health crisis, it is the Gospel and not gloom that should motivate and inform us. As blogger and author Samuel James pointed out on Twitter, mentally broken young people may be primed to hear the truth: "Evangelicals need to disabuse themselves of the idea that Gen-Z is a wholly unreachable mass of buffered selves. The mental health crisis may cut right through secularization like butter." God has made us for Himself. The kind of postmodern individualism that Gen Z was raised with will never deliver on its promises. This mental health crisis is a spiritual crisis. We have the opportunity to introduce a generation of restless hearts to the One able to deliver on His promises to bring rest to their souls. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Breakpoint was originally published on April 13, 2023.

When Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin collapsed on the field Monday, several sports analysts called it the scariest scene they'd ever seen on a football field. Hamlin suffered a cardiac arrest after a routine tackle and remains in critical condition. As ESPN analyst and former player Ryan Clark described in an emotional segment, no one had prepared for this, not Hamlin, not the other players, and not media personnel. But ESPN analyst Dan Orlovsky knew what to do when he didn't know what else to do. Appearing on NFL Live Tuesday morning, he said, "Maybe this is not the right thing to do but it's just on my heart that I wanna pray for Damar Hamlin right now. I'm gonna do it out loud, I'm gonna close my eyes, I'm gonna bow my head and I'm just gonna pray for him." And that's what he did. The other hosts on set joined, as did who knows how many viewers. Maybe some were comforted. Maybe others learned what it means to talk with God. It was a powerful and courageous thing to do. After praying for healing and comfort for Damar Hamlin, Orlovsky closed with: "If we didn't believe that prayer didn't work we wouldn't ask this of you God. I believe in prayer. We believe in prayer. We lift up Damar Hamlin's name in your name." And to that we can all say, "Amen." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was originally published on January 5, 2023.

Not that long ago, culturally speaking, someone known throughout the world for being neighborly said some things that most likely would have gotten him fired today. And, believe it or not, he said these things on public television! Fred Rogers of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood often performed songs he wrote to address issues that confused children or caused them to struggle. One of these songs, "Everybody's Fancy," was featured in numerous episodes of his hit show from 1968 to 1991. He hoped to help children love and value their bodies and to respect other children, too. Rogers was, of course, completely unaware of the modern controversies over LGBTQ identities that would soon dominate the culture, but, in several lines of the song, he expressed truths that are no longer permitted to be said out loud. Take a listen: "Boys are boys from the beginning. Girls are girls right from the start. Everybody's fancy, everybody's fine. Your body's fancy and so is mine. ... Only girls can grow up to be the mommies. Only boys can grow up to be the daddies." Can you imagine someone saying these things on PBS today? In fact, in a segment last year from the Let's Learn TV series, PBS stations across the country featured a drag queen who goes by the stage name "Lil Miss Hot Mess" singing lines from his book, The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish, to the tune of "The Wheels on the Bus go Round and Round." "Hot Mess" is a grown man who dresses in flamboyant and exaggerated women's clothing and makeup, and then seeks an audience with children. The most obvious takeaway is that any trust previous generations of parents and kids had for public television was, long ago, squandered. A second takeaway is just how quickly some ideas have shifted from being unthinkable to unquestionable. Therefore, we should doubt anyone who tries to gaslight us into thinking we're regressive bigots for believing male and female are realities built into human nature. Only a short time ago, some facts were considered so obvious and universally accepted that Mister Rogers could sing about them to children on a publicly funded medium, and no one thought anything whatsoever about gender dysphoria, transgender identity, or drag queens when he did. Does that mean Fred Rogers was a bigot? Was he a transphobe? No. In fact, no one had ever heard of such accusations at the time. As an ordained Presbyterian minister, Rogers viewed the world in a noticeably Christian way. Though he didn't often discuss his faith publicly, his dedication to and concern for children was, in very real ways, Christ-like. For example, Rogers did not avoid difficult subjects if he believed kids needed to talk about them. So, he dealt with death, divorce, and racism, and he had a way of empathizing with the especially deep sorrow and confusion children can feel over such things. "Everybody's Fancy" was Rogers' way of teaching children that they are fearfully and wonderfully made. For Rogers, that included talking about the human body as something good, as worth appreciating and caring for. Mister Rogers even taught children that one thing that made bodies special was that they were gendered, and that this gender had significance for who and what they would become in life. As he said, only boys can grow up to be daddies, and only girls can grow up to be mommies. In this, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was unlike so many children's shows that vaguely taught and sang about how "everyone is special." Barney was not only irritating, it was gnostic. Mr. Rogers, at least in this song, had a robust applied creational theology. That's not to say Mr. Rogers always got it right. It seems, for example, that his compassion eventually got in the way of clear thinking on sexuality and gender, though he kept his views quiet for the sake of avoiding controversy. Even so, his strong affirmation of the goodness and permanence of male and female—and the fact that he generated no controversy for saying these things—should make us think. What he sang then is no less obviously true now, and it's absurd to suggest that Mister Rogers was some hate-filled bigot for holding these views, as our president seemed to imply recently. No, it's those who tell children that their "fancy bodies" may, in fact, be the wrong bodies and in need of social, chemical, or surgical alteration, who are living in the land of make-believe. Today's Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Breakpoint was originally published on January 3, 2023.

Canada's campaign to normalize suicide as a viable and even preferred medical treatment continues to escalate. Already, patients have been pressured into physician-assisted suicide because of psychological pain, and even because they were too poor to pay for medical care. Last summer, Canadian Virtual Hospice released what can only be called "death ed" for kids 6-10. The Medical Aid in Dying Activity Book for kids explains why a loved one might want to die and how the process works. It's thick with euphemisms, referring to lethal injections as "medicines," to "bodies" dying instead of people, and assuring children their loved one is not really choosing to die but is in too much pain to live. As Wesley Smith wrote at National Review, children have to be convinced killing is okay: "They are not stupid and will know that their loved one is being terminated." They know what doctors are for, to help and not to harm. The adults behind this ghoulish coloring book have forgotten that. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was originally published on January 4, 2023.

Today, the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns seems, at least to most of us, like an extended nightmare of yesterday. However, some of the ways that our lives changed have stuck with us. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans working primarily from home has tripled since 2019. Many people will never go back to full-time commuting, nor do they want to (though there are signs of a reset on the horizon). Another change, one even more consequential for individuals and our society, is the large-scale exodus from in-person church services. According to Pew Research, though nearly all houses of worship had resumed regular, in-person services by this time last year, disappointingly few Christians had actually returned. There's the church, there's the steeple, open the door … but where are the people? Researchers from the Survey Center on American Life and the University of Chicago found that, last year, one-third of Americans admitted to never attending religious services, up from a quarter of Americans before the pandemic. They also found no lockdown-induced surge in atheism nor drop in religious affiliation. Instead, for the most part, "religious identity remained stable through the pandemic." Apparently, large numbers of people who once identified as Christians have decided they no longer need to attend church. While COVID may have been the impetus behind this exodus, the root causes are preexisting and go much deeper. Too many Christians think of church as they would an event, concert, or TED Talk, optional experiences that can just as easily be consumed remotely. When combined with pastors and leaders who view the core purpose of church as evangelism rather than discipleship or worship and are therefore willing to do whatever seems to "work," success is just as easily measured by logins and views after the pandemic as it was by attendance numbers and growth size before the pandemic. Much is behind these shifting numbers. First and foremost, God continues to prune and winnow His Church, seeking the health of His Beloved. The broader cultural shift away from truth-claims and anything that smacks of traditional morality has only intensified in recent years. And, we should at least consider the possibility that the decline in both numbers and influence is, at least in part, a self-inflicted wound. Like C.S. Lewis' famous image of making mud pies in the slum when offered a trip to the seashore, we've baptized (and watered down) the habits of the world in place of the riches provided in the testimony of Scripture and the God-ordained practices of the Church. Why would our neighbors be drawn to warmed-over versions of the world's leftovers? To use a pair of homespun metaphors, the kind of bait used determines the kind of fish caught. Or, more prosaically, what you win people with is what you win them to. After decades of appealing first and foremost to whatever people want and editing to whatever they think, we've essentially discipled a generation that will only follow a Church that leads where they want to go. In every age, a true and real Christianity finds much to critique as well as to affirm. If we aren't willing to challenge the sacred cows of our day, if we aren't up to preaching what Tom Holland called the "weird stuff" of our faith, we will find (and perhaps even now we are finding) that no one is interested in what we have to say because we aren't saying much worth hearing. Our embodied and relational nature, which required an embodied and relational salvation, is one of those things. Thus, the author of Hebrews warns his readers not to forsake gathering together "as is the habit of some." And thus, when the Apostle Paul sought to explain the relationship between Christ and His Church, he invoked marriage. The love between a husband and wife symbolizes the love Jesus has for His Bride. The profound "mystery" to which Paul refers is the total union (body and soul) between the Savior and His saved people. Our lives in Christ are just as physical as marriage. If you wouldn't try a purely virtual relationship with your spouse, you shouldn't try a virtual relationship with Christ or His people. Both require and deeply involve our bodies, and Christ could not have made this any clearer than He did by placing a family meal at the center of Christian worship, commanding us to "take and eat." Unless limited by a health issue, attending a house church, or using creative sanctuary furnishings, Christians should always choose pews over couches. And churches should choose the truth-claims and practices of Holy Scripture over market-driven research. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to colsoncenter.org. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Breakpoint was originally published on February 16, 2023.

It is typically entertaining when two popular intellectuals get into a public spat. Recently, Canadian psychologist and YouTube star Jordan Peterson called out the famous British biologist Richard Dawkins with an "I told you so!" After Dawkins complained on Twitter about New Zealand elevating traditional Maori stories to the same level as Western science, Peterson retorted, "Welcome to the world of post-humanism, sir. A world which you sadly helped birth. … [I]t wouldn't surprise me at all if the woke polytheistic neopaganists destroy science faster than they destroy Christianity." On one hand, Dawkins is right that the whole genius of "Western" science is that it isn't just Western. But, as Peterson not so gently noted, Dawkins has spent his career tearing down the religious foundations upon which Western science is built. Without God and all that His existence implies, there is no solid ground for saying that any knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is true for everyone. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was originally published on July 12, 2023.