Breakpoint

The cases involving affirmative action and Lorie Smith and 303 Creative have received the most attention from the recent Supreme Court term, but another ruling has important implications for religious liberty. The Court ruled that U.S. Post Office employee Gerald Groff could not be forced to work on Sundays. Thanks are due to Groff and his lawyers at The First Liberty Institute. In the past, employers could get away with merely offering lip service to religious exemptions for workers because any vaguely defined "undue hardship" for the bosses overrode their faith concerns. Now, employers must demonstrate that accommodating an employee's faith would entail a "substantial increased cost" before demanding their conformity. The ruling is a final blow to the "now abrogated" Lemon Test that hampered religious liberty for a half-century. It also provides legal standing for challenging other impositions on religious liberty at work—such as being forced to use "preferred pronouns," or post rainbow flags, or join "pride" marches. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A recent CBS News article claims, in its very title in fact, to separate "medical facts from misinformation" around so-called "gender-affirming care." However, rather than separate the facts from the falsehoods, the article peddles lies and half-truths, assuming the conclusions it claims to prove in a thinly veiled piece of progressive propaganda. And that's about the nicest thing that can be said about it. The first dead giveaway about the piece is how it smuggles transgender ideology into its chosen language and terminology. Rather than refer to boys and girls, or young males and females, the author refers to "kids with testes" and "those with ovaries." The piece then claims to set the record straight about what is involved in diagnosing gender dysphoria and administering "gender-affirming care." Here, too, its claims could not be further from the truth. According to the author, "the process informing these treatments is a long and intensive one." This directly conflicts with an increasing number of testimonies from whistleblowers and de-transitioners who sought out this kind of care, not to mention the information given by providers like Planned Parenthood. According to a whistleblower and former case manager at Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children's Hospital, "[T]he majority" of young people who came to them "received hormone prescriptions." Likewise, Helena Kirschner, a young woman who detransitioned, received testosterone as a teenager after her very first visit to Planned Parenthood. It's notable that Planned Parenthood doesn't even cover up this information. On some office webpages, the abortion giant happily promotes that "[i]n most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required." Getting high-powered, life-altering drugs on your first visit hardly involves a "long and intensive" diagnosis process. The piece also falsely presents the effects of chemical "transition" interventions as reversible and harmless, peddling the lie that puberty blockers are like a "pause button" for puberty, which can be stopped and restarted with no long-term effect. Contrary to this claim, recent studies have found that the lasting adverse effects of the puberty-blocking drug Lupron, which is used to halt puberty primarily in young girls, include brittle bones and faulty joints. The piece also tries to soften the truth about cross-sex hormones by saying that some of their effects are reversible. However, changes caused in secondary sexual characteristics, such as deepened voices, facial hair, breast growth, and infertility are not reversible in the least. At the heart of most transgender propaganda is the claim that transitioning children has mental health benefits and can save them from suicide. Unsurprisingly, this piece repeats that claim while ignoring the facts that do not line up. The piece cites a popular but deeply flawed study among trans-advocates that those who received cross-sex hormones as minors had better mental health outcomes than those who received them as adults. However, the study's flawed design makes it impossible to sufficiently isolate cross-sex hormones, or lack thereof, as the determining factor of mental health outcomes. In fact, better research shows the opposite conclusion. For example, in states where youth were able to access chemical "transition" interventions without parental consent, youth suicide rates were higher than those who required parental consent. Additionally, the longest-term study on the effects of transitioning has found that those who transition are over 19 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population. Far from causing harm, denying irreversible and sterilizing chemical and surgical interventions actually helps children who are distressed by their bodies. Granted time and space, many learn to accept their bodies and God-given identities. However, propaganda pieces like this one published by CBS confuse those called to care for children and only contributes to their harm. If journalists and media outlets really want to dispel misinformation and help vulnerable children, they should stop blindly repeating the lies of gender ideologues. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Eckert. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

This week in 1924, Eric Liddell (1902-1945) won an Olympic gold medal in the 400-meter race. As a devout Christian, Liddell decided to never race on Sundays. Imagine his dismay when he realized that his best race—the 100-meter—was scheduled for a Sunday. Liddell withdrew, to the derision of many Britons who thought he was being disloyal to his nation. He quickly pivoted for the 200-meter and 400-meter races, taking third in the 200-meter and claiming the gold in the 400-meter. Liddell was the son of Scottish missionaries to China, and his story was memorialized in the film Chariots of Fire, which won the Oscar in 1982 for Best Picture. Despite athletic success, Liddell returned to China the following year. During World War II, the Japanese took over his mission station and placed him in an internment camp, where he faithfully served Christ and others before dying of a brain tumor in 1945. Liddell's Olympic-time decision was consistent with the life he lived in faithful service to Christ, who "made [him] for China," but who also "made [him] fast." He ran every race, including the race of life, to "feel God's pleasure." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was originally published 6.12.22.

Recently, in the wake of the Supreme Court's important decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, a lie has been propagated about the case, a lie that purportedly implicates plaintiff Lorie Smith and the Alliance Defending Freedom. Thanks to the willingness of media outlets, public officials, and pundits to repeat these accusations and misrepresent what they mean, this lie has the potential to poison the cultural memory about this critically important case. The accusation is that 303 Creative, the graphic design company at the center of the lawsuit, and ADF invented a fake customer request for a same-sex wedding website and that, because of this deceit, the Court should have never heard the case in the first place. It's important to correct the record. Many Christians joined with other champions of free speech to celebrate the Supreme Court's decision in the 303 case. However, Christians do not believe that the "ends justify the means." A win derived out of false witness and deception cannot be celebrated. That's the kind of win that headline after headline has proclaimed. However, that's not what happened here, as Kristen Waggoner, president and general counsel of ADF, and Erin Hawley, senior counsel of ADF, explained this week in The Wall Street Journal. The origin of the 303 Creative case dates to 2016, when Lorie Smith, who founded the creative design company four years earlier, wanted to include a disclaimer on her website. Hoping to add custom website design for weddings to her menu of services, she wanted to clarify that, as a Christian believer, she could not create custom wedding websites for "same-sex weddings." Given the hostility the state of Colorado had leveled at cake baker Jack Phillips, Lorie knew that she'd likely be considered in violation of the state's broad anti-discrimination law. With the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Lorie and 303 Creative filed a pre-enforcement challenge, a common legal procedure that allows people to challenge a law before they are penalized under it. This procedure recognizes what should be obvious, that free citizens should not have to first be punished under an unconstitutional law before they are able to challenge its constitutionality. The day after ADF first filed Lorie's case, Lorie received a request to create a custom wedding website for someone named Stewart, who said he was marrying someone named Mike. ADF included this request as an addendum to 303 Creative's lawsuit, not as the basis for it, in order to demonstrate that Lorie was under real pressure to violate her beliefs. From the very beginning of Lorie's case—from the federal district court in Colorado where ADF first filed the lawsuit, through the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court—each judge acknowledged that Lorie had both the right and the standing to bring her case as a pre-enforcement challenge. As Waggoner and Hawley wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "Every one of the 12 appellate judges who heard the case agreed that Ms. Smith had standing, and none of their opinions even considered whether she received a request for a same-sex wedding website." However, just days after the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects Lorie from state coercion and that she cannot be forced to say something that violates her beliefs, a news outlet alleged that the website request Lorie Smith had received was fake. According to the report, a man claiming to be Stewart, whose address and contact information matched what had been submitted in the 2016 request, denied ever making it. Immediately, the false memory machine was in motion. Multiple news outlets seized on the accusation, suggesting the case was illegitimate. Even being accused of faking anti-Christian discrimination is often functionally sufficient to be convicted in the court of cultural memory. The most likely scenario, of course, is that the request was made by an activist who either hoped that it would undermine the 303 Creative case or could be held (as it was) and brought out in case of an unfavorable decision. Still, whether the request came from a legitimate customer, an activist, or ChatGPT is irrelevant because the case was always a pre-enforcement challenge. Critics are free to dislike the ruling, in which case they should take it up with the U.S. Constitution. But they can't change the facts. In fact, they are also free to express a lie about the case if they choose, though ironically, that's at least partly due to what the Court ruled in this case they are committed to undermining. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Maria Baer. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

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

Jessica Bates lost her husband a few years ago in a car wreck. This would be devastating for anyone, but through her grief over her loss, she's decided to open her heart and home to others. As she lacks a husband, she's now reaching out to those who have no parents, trying to adopt children in her home state of Oregon. Mind you, this is in addition to the five children left fatherless by her husband's death. It takes a special love to take in those who need a home. It takes a strong love and a strong heart to do so while raising little ones alone. You can imagine Jessica's surprise when the state turned her down on ideological grounds. To warrant the state's approval to care for parentless children, she had to sign off on "affirming" any potential adopted child's desire for transgender pronouns, chemical sterilization, and other practices that would have been rightly seen as child abuse just a few years ago. As the Alliance Defending Freedom said of her case, "Oregon officials are preventing Jessica from adopting a child because of her Christian beliefs — despite the fact that they otherwise accommodate people of different religious and cultural backgrounds and try to pair children with families who are well suited to each other. It's a blatant act of religious discrimination, and it must end." This ideological enforcement is not an isolated thing. Last year, the governor of Michigan used her veto power to cut from the state budget millions of dollars allocated to help pro-life groups and Christian adoption agencies. It's not enough, apparently, that these groups work to help "the least of these." To get state funds, they also must toe the party line when it comes to supporting abortion. In America today, there are nearly 400,000 children in the foster care system and over 100,000 waiting to be adopted. Adoption is a beautiful gift that's close to the heart of Christianity, a legacy of the Church's earliest days when unwanted kids, mostly girls, were left on the trash heap by Roman parents. Christians responded by taking these little ones into their homes. There's hardly a better picture of who we are in Christ than adoption. As sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, lost through their Fall, we have been brought into the household of God. The Apostle Paul notes in Galatians, "... born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So, you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God." Drawing on this same beautiful theme, few acts live out this love that God has shown for us than this unique way of loving our neighbor. What better way to reflect the love poured out on us and to realize the restoring work to which our adoptive heavenly Father has called us than to fix what's broken in these little lives? This is an opportunity to move from outrage to a constructive strategy. If you are in a state that is holding back this Christian love from showing forth in children's hearts, call on your representatives to tell them that this is not the way. Or, wherever you live, think of supporting adoption agencies and awaiting parents with funds and goods to help them bring the homeless into their families. Or, if God calls you in this way, prayerfully consider opening your home and heart to those either in temporary foster care or permanently orphaned. As Chuck Colson said almost 30 years ago now, "More than ever, we need to work to promote alternatives to abortion, especially adoption. Couples who take in needy infants and selflessly care for them should not be penalized by policies motivated by political correctness." Working to free potential parents from unwarranted state restrictions and to support them in these adoptions is a clear case where Christian love meets civic duty. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy Padgett. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

One of the most important and effective pro-life leaders is Kristan Hawkins, founder and president of Students for Life of America. Kristan became a pro-life advocate in her early teens when she began serving at a pregnancy care center. Her goal is to make abortion "unthinkable and unavailable across the US." For years she rallied and mobilized young Americans by calling them the "post-Roe generation." Though the Dobbs decision last June in a sense fulfilled that rallying cry, the real vision of Students for Life of America has always been the end of all abortions, and the protection of life beginning at conception. Recently, the headline of a BBC article on Kristan ominously said, "She Helped Kill Roe v Wade - now she wants to end all abortion," as if that wasn't always the goal. For Kristan, the end of Roe is a partial win on the way to building a culture of life. As she put it to the BBC, "I always tell our team: winners envision the win." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Several years ago, Max McLean and the Fellowship for Performing Arts staged The Most Reluctant Convert, a play about the life of C.S. Lewis up to his conversion. During the Covid shutdowns, that production was made into a film that received strong reviews. Now, McLean and FPA are offering a follow-up stage production dealing with Lewis' life post-conversion. Although Further Up and Further In includes some biographical information, such as the writing of The Problem of Pain and the recording of the BBC talks that were later published in Mere Christianity, this new production takes the much more challenging route of exploring the different aspects of Lewis' ministry. Not surprisingly, much of the production is focused on his apologetics. In his day, the great challenge to Christianity was materialism, the idea that everything is just matter and energy. Lewis responded to this by tracing out the implications of that view and showing its utter implausibility. He notes that scientists "observe the behavior of things within the universe. They cannot make statements about things beyond the universe." Any time a scientist does that, for example by proclaiming that matter and energy are all that exist, he is no longer doing science. Even more, Lewis says, if materialism is true, there is no reason to trust the scientist doing science. After all, he rightly observed, "If the materialist view is true, our minds must in reality be merely chance arrangements of atoms in skulls. We never think a thought because it is true, only because blind Nature forces us to think it. We never do an act because it is right, only because blind Nature forces us to do it." This argument, which can also be found in slightly different form in the work of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, is a powerful response to atheism. If atheism is true, any foundation for trusting science or human reason is undermined. Rather than defend a particular denomination of Christianity, Lewis believed that "the only service [he] could do for [his] unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians and at all times." This led him to write The Problem of Pain and from there to do his broadcast talks for the BBC. As a result, he began receiving massive numbers of letters. Though he dismissed some, he felt obligated to respond to any serious inquiries received. Some evenings after work, Lewis wrote up to 35 letters. Much of Further Up and Further In is adapted from volume two of Lewis' collected letters, a 1,152-page tome. Through an adaptation of some of these letters, we see his work as an evangelist. For example, in the play, a young atheist contacts Lewis with questions, and Lewis responds. After a series of exchanges, the young atheist decides to take the step of committing himself to Christ. Lewis responds with advice on how to grow in faith and hang on to it through doubts. In the end, Lewis argues, "It all hinges on Jesus. If His statements are false, Christianity is of no importance. If true, it is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important." As a literary scholar, Lewis anticipated the argument that the Gospels cannot be trusted, pointing out that the Gospels include statements that would hardly be expected if they were made up by people trying to prove the divinity of Jesus. Rather, the difficulties that they pose are solid evidence for the truthfulness of the Gospels' accounts of Jesus's teaching. Toward the end of Further Up and Further In, the character of Lewis turns his focus to Christians, offering advice on temptation (something he had discussed in The Screwtape Letters), the crucial importance of prayer, the Second Coming and the end of the world, and heaven. Much of this advice remains as helpful today as when he first offered it. Once again, Max McLean and the Fellowship for Performing Arts show why Lewis' popularity and value have endured. Further Up and Further In is currently on tour. How Lewis engaged the materialists of his time is a model for engaging people today who, though coming from a different worldview, seem just as unable to acknowledge the reality that God has made known in His world. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, the FDA approved a brain-implanted computer chip, developed by Elon Musk's company Neuralink, for human trials. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Holocaust-era movie eerily resembles the expansive loosening of euthanasia laws in the name of human dignity. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

John and Maria look at several recent Supreme Court decisions that move the court to the right and what is driving the recent claims that adults have a right to have children? For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

While some 74% of Americans believe race and ethnicity should not be considered in college admissions, others are lamenting the Supreme Court decision to end affirmative action as an inevitable catastrophe. In the words of one headline in The Atlantic, "Elite Multiculturalism Is Over." However, the question so rarely asked is, "Did affirmative action even work in the first place?" Back in 2004, renowned economist Thomas Sowell—a 1958 Harvard grad—set out to answer that question, surveying educational systems around the world. Sowell not only concluded that affirmative action was ineffective, he likened it to a wrong medical diagnosis and prescription: "False beliefs are not small things, because they lead to false solutions. In the field of medicine, it has long been recognized that even a false cure that is wholly harmless in itself can be catastrophic in its consequences if it substitutes for a real cure for a deadly disease." In other words, good intentions aren't enough. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

New from the Colson Center! Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library! ____ Following the lead of the province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick became the second jurisdiction in Canada to adopt a policy of "presumed consent" for organ and tissue donation. Instead of willingly opting in to be an organ donor, residents 19 years and older, with limited exceptions, will be opted in by default. While many see this as a solution to the perpetual demand for transplant organs, laws like these treat the ethics of organ donation as a settled matter while treating humans and their bodies as means to other ends. Even more, considering Canada's policy of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), this step will corrode the already thin ideas of "autonomy" and "consent" while incentivizing a utilitarian view of human nature. For context, Canada has already experienced a dramatic expansion of MAID toward not only those facing a terminal medical diagnosis but also for those suffering from mental illness deemed "grievous and irremediable" (those who suffer solely from mental illness will not be eligible until 2024). In 2021, assisted deaths rose by 35%, reaching over 10,000, or 3% of all deaths in the country. Opponents of MAID, including virtually every disability rights group in Canada, continued to warn that a so-called "right" to die will inevitably devolve into a duty to die. People are seen, both by themselves and by others, as burdens using precious resources better spent on those with better prospects for a "better" life. These warnings were, to put it mildly, ignored. As numbers climb, so do stories of pressure and coercion. Consider the Canadian veteran suffering from PTSD who was offered MAID instead of treatment last year. The presumed consent of the New Brunswick law adds a perverse incentive: the immense value of organs for transplant. The mismatch between supply and demand, not to mention what balancing that mismatch would mean, has always dominated the ethical conversation about organ donation. Currently, over 4,300 Canadians are waiting for an organ transplant, and as a government website states, hundreds "will die waiting. ..." Canada's end-of-life policies already incentivize death. If donors request death, not only is the difficulty of obtaining consent more easily settled, so is the issue of preserving organs. Law professor F.H. Buckley explained in the Wall Street Journal, "Last year … two Canadian medical researchers and a Harvard bioethicist argued that [waiting until the patient is declared dead] could reduce the quality of donated organs. A superior model, they suggest, could be to kill the patient by removing his organs. After all, the best organs come from live people, like those who donate one of their kidneys. ... [B]y linking assisted suicide and organ harvesting, it ratifies the premise that euthanasia can help create a more efficient organ supply chain. … Where euthanasia is legal, the temptation to link the time of death and the demand for organs may similarly become too strong to resist. On a slow day there's no hurry, but when a patient [who] is waiting for a heart is in the next hospital room, you'd expect greater pressure to euthanize a patient. ... Medical professionals should not be given the incentive to see their patients as sacks of valuable organs rather than as human beings." The farther the medical world moves from its founding principle of "Do no harm," the more harm is done. Take for instance China, where one top transplant doctor admitted that "effectively 95% of all organ transplants were from prisoners." As unthinkable as it sounds, experts warned that these prisoners were likely executed by the means of "organ removal." Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement and vocal opponent of euthanasia, was deeply influenced by Christianity. She once wrote, "The question of how one feels about so-called 'rational suicide' is, I believe, ultimately governed by the question of how much faith one has in human nature." Powerful market incentives will only worsen an already epidemic disregard for human life. For Canadians, "presumed consent" is another stage in the downward spiral of a culture of death. If it continues to spread, there will be no opting out. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Kasey Leander. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

One of the great and mostly unsung heroes of medicine was Cicely Saunders, the British nurse and social worker who effectively invented palliative care as we know it. A fierce opponent of euthanasia, she was convinced that easing suffering encompassed looking after the physical, spiritual, and emotional needs of a patient. She worked tirelessly against outdated methods of pain management, including the idea that existing pain medication should wear off before more is administered. For her efforts, she was made a Dame of the British Empire, and of the Order of St. Gregory the Great by Pope John Paul II. Recently in the New Atlantis, physician Matthew Loftus argued that the modern approach to the end of life is "ending the suffering by eliminating the sufferer." Cicely lived by a different creed: "[W]e will do all we can to help you not only to die peacefully, but also to live until you die." Increasingly, how Christians deal with dying will reveal what we really believe about life. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

New from the Colson Center! Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library! ___ Dr. Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, released a book earlier this year with a bombshell piece of advice: Go outside! Recently, Dr. Keltner spoke to The New York Times about the book, entitled Awe: The New Science of Everyday Wonder and How it can Transform Your Life. He recommended "awe walks," intentional time spent outside and focused on nature. This, Keltner says, can inspire awe, "that complex emotion we experience when encountering something so vast that our sense of self recedes." Awe has measurable psychological and even physical benefits, including reducing anxiety, depression, and even inflammation. So, go outside and think of something other than yourself. Not exactly rocket science, or anything new for that matter, but great advice, nonetheless. In Keltner's words the goal of making our "sense of self recede" is quite counter-cultural. For decades, the dominant ideas in psychology and most of the social sciences have been that the self is the highest priority and that self-expression, self-discovery, and self-actualization (or "living authentically") are the keys to the meaning of life and the only ways to be happy. The fruit of this poisonous tree is the rigid dogma of the late sexual revolution: Our "self-expression" is our true self, and all of reality must bend to accommodate it. This makes this "new" science, that true satisfaction comes when our "sense of self recedes," so shocking to read in print. It's in turning outward and upward, not inward, that we find the most joy, contentment, and meaning. For evidence that Dr. Keltner is really on to something here, we only need look at the University of Oklahoma women's softball team, who just won their third consecutive collegiate World Series title. Throughout their impressive winning streak, they were often criticized for excessive celebration. These celebrations of great plays or big wins are in stark contrast to the trash-talking and chest-thumping endemic in high-level sports, including this year's women's collegiate Final Four. When an ESPN reporter asked the OU players how they maintained their joy amid fierce competition, team captain Grace Lyons replied: "Well, the only way that you can have a joy that doesn't fade away is from the Lord. And any other type of joy is actually happiness that comes from circumstances and outcomes." Her teammate, Jayda Coleman, said: "[W]e want to win. But it's not the end of the world [if we lose] because our life is in Christ. And that's all that matters." Joy, in other words, comes from looking outward and upward, not inward. The beautiful world God created is a source of joy because it draws us outward. To paraphrase something John Piper once said, most people don't stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and think, "Wow, I am awesome." Ultimately, starry nights, clever animals, and beautiful sunsets direct our thoughts upward. It's an incredible gift of God that His handiwork points us to Him. After all, beautiful things mean more when we know and love the person who made them. Something store-bought cannot compare to something made by someone who had us in mind while making it. In the same way, the creation reveals that God loves us and that He made the world with humans in mind. "Awe walks" are therapeutically helpful because of what is true about the world, about the God who made it, and about ourselves. In contrast, the inward turn that has marked our culture and is largely taken for granted these days as the key to our identity and the meaning of life has only left us more lost, confused, and depressed. In other words, go outside. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

On this special edition of Breakpoint, John Stonestreet interviews Paul Fitzpatrick, President of 1792 Exchange. They discuss freedom of religion and enterprise and moving "woke" corporations back to neutral. For more resources on how to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit https://breakpoint.org/. _ 1792 Exchange is a non-profit organization whose mission is to develop policy and resources to protect and equip non-profits, small businesses and philanthropy from "woke" corporations to educate Congress and stakeholder organizations about the dangers of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) policies, and to help steer public companies in the United States back to neutral on ideological issues so they can best serve their shareholders and customers with excellence and integrity. Learn more at https://1792exchange.com/about/. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A Harvard Business Review article once advised: "Forget PowerPoint and statistics, to involve people at the deepest level you need to tell stories." Those hoping to defend innocent life should take note. A few weeks ago, a powerful story went viral on social media. A young father holding his infant daughter posted a confession, "God please forgive me: see the beautiful soul I wanted to abort." Of course, there are millions who have gone forward with that terrible choice and who know the full regret of abortion. The Silent No More Awareness Campaign is the place where these stories are told. "I didn't defend the life of my own daughter based on misinformation, selfishness, fear, and shame," one man admitted, "I let her die to an abortionist knife, and I died the same day." These stories are hard to hear and harder to tell, but they need to be told. When hidden, people are enslaved to guilt and shame. As Jesus said, "the truth sets us free." For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

New from the Colson Center! Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library! __ In 1792, a group of New York bankers gathered by a famous tree on Wall Street and signed the landmark "Buttonwood Agreement." Against a backdrop of speculation and deceit, the document signaled a return to openness, fair dealing, and integrity among New York's financial sector. Eventually, the Buttonwood Agreement became the basis for the New York Stock Exchange. Today, corporate America faces a different crisis of values. Spurred on by the push for so-called "environmental, social, and governance principles" (ESG) a decade ago, a huge percentage of top corporations are now committed to an increasingly radical progressive agenda. This agenda is forced on employees and customers and anyone whom these corporations do business with, from vendors to HR firms to investment portfolios to every small business along the supply chain. The "Pride Month" fiascos of Bud Light and Target exemplify just how allegiant some corporations are to this agenda, completely misunderstanding their consumer base. Recently, I spoke with Paul Fitzpatrick, president of the 1792 Exchange. Their vision is to steer public companies back toward a commonsense vision of the workplace. In our conversation, which airs as a special bonus episode of the Breakpoint podcast, Paul and I discussed how ideas long entrenched in the university and in the arts reached corporate America and have disenfranchised people of faith and moral conviction. Corporations impact what we see, how we entertain ourselves, how we feed ourselves, how we clothe ourselves, and how we fund our businesses. And so, they can either put gas on the fire of something good or put gas on the fire of something bad. Part of the issue, Paul explains, is how progressive groups targeted corporations after the financial crisis of 2008-09. Remember how unpopular they were after the '08-'09 crisis? And taxpayers bailed them out, and everybody on the right and the left were mad at corporations. … So, here they are, Wall Street is very unpopular … and they're looking for a way to cozy up and get basically the Occupy Wall Street folks and Congress off their backs, and to some extent conservatives. But at the same time, the left is looking for a way to leverage corporations. You had said they already captured academia. We already talked about the media. But they were moving to capture corporate America. Activists pushed corporations to get on the so-called "right side" of certain social issues. You've got the Human Rights Campaign coming in saying, hey, you know, you got 100% last year. We want you to get 100% this year. So, what you need to do is … have a DEI curriculum—diversity, equity, and inclusion training for all your employees, whether you have 100 or 100,000 employees. In the end, freedom of expression has been stifled in the workplace. Even small businesses face enormous pressure to comply with the demands of a few powerful entities. If you have a business and you are a supplier to a major company that has signed on to the progressive agenda and all those areas we discussed, they could demand that you have certain hiring practices, which many do if you're going to get a 100% score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which 842 companies did by the way recently, you have to mandate in your supply chain that the LGBTQ agenda and hiring is adhered to. As far as internal corporations, there's no question we've seen examples of employees being fired for taking political or ideological positions outside of work. The 1792 Exchange is working to shift the conversation by educating consumers and stockholders, supporting private businesses and business leaders, and exposing the coercive tactics of these few powerful groups. Their Corporate Bias Ratings tool reviews over 1,500 different companies, scoring them on how well they respect viewpoint diversity. Learn more about their work at 1792exchange.com, and listen to a special Breakpoint bonus episode with Paul Fitzpatrick at breakpoint.org or wherever you listen to podcasts. Safeguarding and advancing freedom of conscience in the workplace benefits everyone. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Kasey Leander. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Can a Christian be patriotic? Years ago on Breakpoint, Chuck Colson pointed out how Americans used to openly embrace the Christian traditions and values that shaped our Republic. In that culture, it was easy for a Christian to be a patriot. Perhaps too easy. Vibrant, biblical faith could degenerate into a civil religion where the country's wellbeing and the expansion of God's Kingdom were synonymous. But today, many Americans have rejected the religious values that informed our society. Where along this range of attitudes is true Christian patriotism? Well, first, we mustn't deify our country. We don't wrap the flag around the cross. Our citizenship is in heaven, and that's where our ultimate allegiance is. But as Chuck said, we can't love mankind in the abstract. We can only really love people in the particular, concrete relationships God has placed us in—our family, our church, our community, and our nation. So, celebrate this July Fourth by thanking God for calling us into His Kingdom and allowing us to live in—and yes, love—this land of liberty. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org This Point was last published on July 3, 2020.

New from the Colson Center! Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library! -- The year before he died, Chuck Colson delivered a Breakpoint commentary on the July Fourth holiday in which he reflected on our national identity. Specifically, he recognized that the only way to ground the ideals found in the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal" and possess "certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is if we are indeed "endowed by their Creator." The stunning clarity of the Declaration of Independence in stating that our rights are ultimately granted by God and not the state is something too often forgotten today, if not entirely dismissed. Here's Chuck Colson reflecting on this important truth: The great British intellectual G.K. Chesterton wrote that "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed." Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands—and the peasants who inhabited those lands. But America was—and is to this day—different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or as Chesterton said, on a creed. And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I'll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn't wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life, if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations. Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking, indeed, revolutionary. Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66% of American adults have no idea that the words, "we hold these truths," come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45% of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration. As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we embrace the American creed. Yes, America has always been a "melting pot." But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot's "original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy." A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked, "The pot must not melt." Abraham Lincoln understood this so well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was "the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world." So go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie. But here's an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and neighbors. Listen—and thrill—to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These are the words that Americans live for—and if necessary, die for. Chuck Colson's words are just as true and relevant today as when he said them, and perhaps even more important for us to understand. From all of us at the Colson Center, Happy Fourth! For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

This June, the 2023 Special Olympics World Games were held in Berlin, Germany. Some 7,000 athletes from 170 countries took part in the annual celebration of people with disabilities, people often dehumanized and marginalized. The Special Olympics were founded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. She was inspired by her sister Rosemary, who lived with intellectual disabilities her entire life. Shriver started the first special Olympics in 1962 as a summer camp in her backyard. The competition grew, and her efforts earned her admiration and the honor of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Some years ago, New York Times opinion writer Ross Douthat described Shriver as a "different kind of liberal," who "saw a continuity, rather than a contradiction, between championing the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed and protecting unborn human life." That consistency, he thought, was in large part due to her upbringing in the Church, specifically what she learned there: that all people are made by God in His image. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

New from the Colson Center! Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library! _ On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a smashing victory for free speech. Lorie Smith is the founder of 303 Creative, a graphic design company that, among other services, creates custom websites for weddings. Concerned that a Colorado law would force her to design websites for same-sex weddings or take on other projects that would violate her deeply held religious beliefs, Smith filed a pre-enforcement challenge, asking the court to weigh in on whether the law violated her freedom of speech and conscience. The state decided that Lorie did not have the right to choose which messages she uses her talents to express. It even forbade her, for example, from posting a notice on her website stating she is unable to create websites that express messages contrary to her Christian beliefs, including websites that promote abortion services, celebrate same-sex marriages, or advance a transgender ideology. In July 2021, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Smith and for the state of Colorado. Friday, on the last day of the 2023 docket, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and ruled in favor of Lorie Smith. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch, explained: The First Amendment's protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. ... Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation's answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment. Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the case before the Court, described the win in a press release: This is a win for all Americans. The government should no more censor Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage. If we desire freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others. It's not yet clear what implications this decision will hold for others, such as Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips, who are being forced to choose between their businesses and their deeply held religious beliefs. However, unlike the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case, this decision was far broader and clearly dealt with questions of speech, conscience, and government coercion. In the Masterpiece case, the Supreme Court smacked down the state of Colorado for showing clear and extensive animus toward Jack's faith. The state civil rights commission responded by not only showing similar animus again, but by also allowing and enabling another citizen to harass Jack Phillips, beginning on the same day that Jack's first case was approved to be heard by the Supreme Court, and continuing today. Already, voices as significant as dissenting Supreme Court justices and major media outlets have reported that, in the 303 Creative decision, the Court has allowed business owners to refuse service for LGBTQ people. That is simply not true. In fact, Justice Gorsuch specifically said as much in his majority opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, however, repeated that falsehood anyway before articulating a revisionist history of LGBTQ rights. For example, she repeated falsehoods about the murder of Matthew Shepard, wrongly claimed that the Colorado law did not affect Lorie Smith's rights "in any meaningful sense," and neglected the condition established by Smith that she would not refuse service to anyone because of their sexual orientation. To the dissent, Justice Gorsuch retorted in the majority opinion, "It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case." Lorie Smith never asked for the right to refuse service to a particular group of people. She asked not to be forced to produce speech that she did not agree with. That's what the Court affirmed on Friday. It is important that, whenever possible, all Americans who are concerned about the rights of conscience, including the freedom of speech, correct the falsehoods about this decision. As Lorie Smith said in ADF's press release, This is a victory not just for me but for all Americans across our great country—for those who share my beliefs and for those who hold different beliefs. Whether you're an LGBT graphic designer, a Jewish calligrapher, an Atheist speechwriter, or a pro-life photographer, the government shouldn't force any of us to say something we don't believe. I love people and work with everyone, including those who identify as LGBT.

John Stonestreet takes a first look at the new decision from the U.S. Supreme Court siding with 303 Creative in Colorado. The mainstream media says Christians and Muslims are competing for followers in Africa. — Recommendations — What Would You Say?: Is the Bible Still Relevant? To Be a Woman: The Confusion Over Female Identity and How Christians Can Respond by Dr. Katie J McCoy Section 1 - 303 Creative SCOTUS Ruling 303 Creative v. Elenis Section 2 - The Competition for Believers in Africa is Transforming Christianity and Islam The Wall Street Journal Section 3 - College Loan Forgiveness SCOTUS Ruling Section 4 - US Companies are Talking Less about Pride Month "In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination" NBC News For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

For a moment last week, Russia seemed headed for a coup or even civil war. After months of complaining about mistreatment by Moscow, the Wagner mercenary group marched on the capital. Then came dueling speeches by Wagner's leader and Russia's president, elites fleeing en masse, and an armored column outside the city. Then suddenly, it stopped. Each side stood down. Even now, days later, it is not clear what exactly happened or what will happen next. The whole bizarre scene offers important lessons about the human condition, and especially politics. We may think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but, as in this case, sometimes he's still an enemy. Just because a guy is on our side doesn't mean he's good, or that we are and aren't bad guys too. What happened in Russia is an extreme example to be sure, but we should be careful to see our political leaders through a biblical lens, not political pragmatism. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, a school district near Salt Lake City, Utah removed the Bible from elementary and middle school libraries. Though it quickly reversed course and returned it to the library shelves, the original decision was made in response to a complaint that the Bible contains pornographic content, and that certain parts are too "violent or vulgar" for young children. Meanwhile, school districts across the country require LGBT content, much of it grossly explicit, in elementary school classrooms as well as libraries. Some even refuse to allow parents to excuse their children from such content. It is, to put it mildly, upside down to silence the Bible in order to "protect" children while forcing radical ideas about identity and sexuality on them. Though the Bible speaks plainly about the violence and barbarity of fallen humanity (see the final three chapters of the book of Judges, for example), it is not gratuitous. More importantly, the Bible portrays evil as evil, rather than celebrating the brokenness under the guise of "authenticity," "autonomy," and "diversity." Eliminating the Bible from education also ignores the crucial impact the Bible has had on the world, especially in shaping Western culture. On one hand, this is simply part of the wholesale condemnation of Western culture so common today. However, even if the Western heritage in the sciences, technology, human rights, freedom, and the arts are downplayed or ignored, at least some knowledge of the Bible is basic to knowing human history at all. Put differently, to assume that the Bible is no longer relevant to the modern world is to misunderstand both the Bible and the modern world. The latest episode of the Colson Center's What Would You Say? video series offers a response to the claim that "the modern world has moved beyond the Bible." Here's a sample: The Bible's positive influence on the world as we know it has been so profound and so thorough that it's easy to forget just how much it has shaped our understanding of science, morality, politics, literature, music, language and so many other aspects of life and culture. Every video in the What Would You Say? series offers thoughtful, reasoned, and reliable answers to common cultural questions. This video explains how the Bible shaped Western culture, how the Bible's description of reality provided the grounding for modern science, and why there will be a growing demand for the Bible as more and more people come to faith around the world. For example, there is a reason that the scientific revolution did not emerge out of other cultures. Despite the common narrative that Christianity is anti-science, science requires a consistent natural order, something described from the very beginning of the Bible: The Bible describes a world that was made by God to be intelligible and orderly. Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer says, "Because we have an intelligence that has, as its source, the intelligence that built the world, we can understand the world…." This is why we expect consistency and order in nature. And why we expect, as humans, to be able to study and comprehend that consistency and order. In fact, the biblical description of reality provided the impetus for most arenas of learning and academic study, including history, medicine, math, and sociology. After all, learning requires that humans are knowers, that they are able to learn, and that the world is knowable. Most worldviews simply cannot ground these assumptions. Other videos in the What Would You Say? video series, which has now garnered over two million views, address questions about science, apologetics, sexuality, race, politics, and more. These videos are for parents to watch with their kids, teachers to use in class with students, and in small groups and Sunday School classes, too. New videos, each addressing a different question, will be added every couple of weeks. Please visit whatwouldyousay.org, or search for and subscribe to the What Would You Say? channel on YouTube. And please share these videos with friends, family, and on social media. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Michaela Estruth. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

This week is the anniversary of two dark and pivotal cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. In June 2013, the high court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violated Due Process. This essentially made the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges judgment, which redefined millennia of law on marriage, inevitable. Justice Anthony Kennedy unwittingly defined our chaotic age in the majority opinion for Obergefell when he declared, "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." This idea—that people can freely craft their identity independent from nature, science, and reality—is behind so much of the moral confusion of the last few years. But it has certainly not led to the "liberty" that Justice Kennedy promised. This is the opportunity for Christians to point not only to an abstract moral position, but to reality itself and to the God who made it. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Few subjects seem less political than math. There is little room for subjective judgment because its truths are universal. No matter what you look like or where you're from or how you feel about it, two plus two will always equal four, and the area of a circle will always be π r². Math is so objective, in fact, some scientists have theorized that prime numbers could offer the basis of communication with supposed intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. However, even if aliens know that math has no racial or gender bias, some educators on Earth seem to think otherwise. Even amid plummeting math scores in the latest Nation's Report Card data, a growing chorus of progressive voices insists that racism and sexism are the biggest problems we face in how to teach math. A couple years ago, in an article in the Scientific American, Rachel Crowell complained about the racial and gender disparities among those who make a career out of mathematics. She pointed out, for instance, that "fewer than 1 percent of doctorates in math are awarded to African Americans" and that only 29.1 percent "were awarded to women." More mathematicians, she writes, have been pushing to discuss these issues and "force the field to confront the racism, sexism and other harmful bias it sometimes harbors." Though, undoubtedly, examples of identity-group bias in all fields exist, Crowell chose to root her complaint in intangibles: Math doctorates are not "earned" or "received" or "completed;" they are "awarded," a word choice that not so subtly reinforces her conclusion that something about math education is racist. Writing at Newsweek, Jason Rantz cited examples of public schools teaching students that math itself, and the way it has always been taught, is oppressive. In Seattle, recently introduced guidelines for K-12 math teachers in several pilot schools claim that "mathematical knowledge has been appropriated by Western culture" and that "math has been and continues to be used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color." In 2021, Oregon's Department of Education introduced a new toolkit called A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction, created by what Rantz calls "a coalition of left-wing educators." The toolkit promises "an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and [m]ultilingual students in grades 6-8." It also warns teachers that "[t]he concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false," and that "[u]pholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." This ideological trend in which everything is read through lenses of oppression and victimhood is not isolated in extreme, left-wing enclaves but has become widespread in education. Given the "Critical Theory mood" inflicting Western culture today, it is only likely to grow in the coming years. One of the many problems with this obsession with racism and oppression in math is that it inevitably leaves students worse at math. In the case of the Seattle pilot schools, for example, performance among black students in the state math exam plummeted after implementing the woke curriculum. Bad ideas with good intentions are still bad ideas. In an effort to empower students, they are instead radically disempowered. The wonder of mathematics lies precisely in its objectivity, as Melissa Cain Travis describes in Thinking God's Thoughts, in the miraculous way that math corresponds to and describes the world around us. In her book, Travis chronicles how the beauty and objectivity of numbers led 16th-century German astronomer Johannes Kepler to discover the three laws of planetary motion and to correctly describe the structure of our solar system. Kepler, as much a student of God as he was a scientist, believed that the truths of numbers were eternal, existing eternally in the mind of God and structuring all of reality. Our minds—as beings made in God's image—are uniquely suited to unlock those mysteries. Students who are taught that answers to algebra problems depend on the color of their skin and that calculus professors are oppressors are not only not going to unlock the mysteries of the universe, but they will also believe what is not true about who they are and the world in which they live. Woke educators may hope to liberate students. But by depriving them of objective truths they are subjugating them to bad ideas. It's a tragically ironic and disastrous miscalculation. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter written in 1675 to fellow scientist Robert Hooke, wrote, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Chuck Colson was one of those giants for many of us, and it is our privilege to steward his legacy at the Colson Center. In fact, Chuck believed that his most important legacy, more than any of the organizations he founded or the many books he authored, would be people. That's why he started what he called the Centurions Program, something that continues today under a different name, the Colson Fellows program. Here's Chuck Colson on the important vision he had for this program: "I have a burning passion—it's the first item on my prayer list every day—and that's to see a movement of Christians raised up from the churches to defend truth in the marketplace of ideas and to live out the Gospel. Nothing less than this kind of an awakening can possibly save our quickly deteriorating culture. That's why I'm now spending all of my time working at Breakpoint and the Colson Center. One of my major projects is developing Christian leaders who can understand and defend a biblical view of all of life. We call this the Centurions Program. For the past six years we have brought 100 of the best and brightest into this year-long teaching effort, to study under some of the best minds in the Christian world. It's demanding: We read books together, view movies and critique them, do a lot of teaching online, and have three residencies during the year in Lansdowne, Virginia, near our offices. Our Centurion graduates are like the Marines or the Navy Seals who are on the front lines of the next wave of leaders. Can this work? Just two weeks ago I was in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for a rally on behalf of the Manhattan Declaration. It was organized by the Catholic Archbishop of New Mexico, Michael Sheehan, and a former congressman named Bill Redmond, who is a Centurion graduate. You can imagine my thrill when I walked into the convention center to see 1,600 participants. And they were on fire! They were there to learn biblical worldview, to learn how to defend the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty, to learn how to become activists! There were representatives from across the denominational spectrum: Southern Baptists, Nazarenes, Assemblies of God, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics. The Church had come together. And all of this was organized by one gutsy archbishop and one Centurion graduate. They in fact have built a powerful network across the state of New Mexico. So yes, it can be done. And our Centurions are doing a whole variety of important tasks across the spectrum. Like Jon Blankmeyer, who founded a safe home for girls rescued from forced prostitution. Josue Delgado, a hospital chaplain who teaches emergency medical technicians on how to build stronger marriages. Kathy Peele, who founded a group to help mothers under distress, and so many more. By the time they are certified, Centurions know how to write, discuss, and teach Christian worldview in all sorts of settings. They know how to create God-honoring culture through the arts, media, literature, and business. They're able to debate ethical challenges with medical professionals, advocate human rights, and develop tomorrow's leaders by raising children grounded in biblical values. In short, they learn to defend truth in an age in which many believe such a thing does not exist. Look, folks, the reason the Church today is having so little impact is too many Christians view their faith only in terms of a personal relationship with Jesus. But Christianity does not stop with salvation: That's only the beginning. We've got to learn how to present our worldview in a winsome way. And if we don't do this, it simply dooms our churches to isolation and irrelevance—just when our culture desperately needs the hope of the Gospel more than ever." After Chuck's death in 2012, the program he started as the Centurions Program was renamed the Colson Fellows program. I think Chuck would be ecstatic to know that this past year, over 1,300 Christians from across the country and around the world studied worldview, theology, and culture as part of the Colson Fellows program. He'd be even more excited to know all the ways the fellows are currently planning to apply what they've learned in the time and place God has called them. If you desire to make a similar impact in your community for Christ, consider studying with the Colson Fellows program next year. With over 60 regional cohorts around the country, there is likely a cohort in your region. If not, there are online cohorts offered as well. Either way, you'll find a deeper understanding of truth and be better equipped to live out your faith in this cultural moment in whatever calling and vocation God has put before you. For more information, visit www.colsonfellows.org. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncent

Just in time for "pride" month, the Associated Press (AP) joined the ranks of activist organizations telling Americans to embrace transgenderism. Recent updates to AP's style guide insist that reporters use individuals' "preferred" pronouns, avoid terms like "biological sex" and "both sexes," call sex "assigned at birth," and refer to controversial surgical and chemical "transition" interventions as "gender-affirming care." The AP justifies the new rules, claiming to follow the science. However, "the science" is far from settled on the subject. Declaring that puberty blockers are "fully reversible" or that chemical and surgical "transition" interventions are backed by evidence betrays actual truth-seeking. More and more studies indicate that these controversial interventions are detrimental to the physical health and mental wellbeing of children. Peddling ideas that are basically dangerous pseudoscience in order to get some cultural brownie points is cowardly. The AP should stick to journalism that seeks the truth, rather than promotes harm. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

New from the Colson Center! Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library! _______ While activists in the U.S. seek to eliminate any restrictions to so-called "gender-affirming" interventions for minors, a number of European countries are adding safeguards around or backing off altogether from these controversial procedures. Following European neighbors Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board announced that it will revise its recommended standards of care for minors struggling with gender dysphoria. The proposed revisions would no longer allow the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transition surgery for minors. As NHIB rightfully points out, the science surrounding "gender-affirming care" is far from settled. In fact, the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or transition surgeries to treat gender dysphoria lacks adequate research. There is hardly any substantial research on the long-term effects of these treatments on minors, and what we do know about them is disregarded by ideologically driven proponents. Puberty blockers, for example, have been known to plague patients with loss of bone density. Cross-sex hormones lead to sterilization. Transition surgeries are rife with serious complications. In the name of a dubious ideology, we're experimenting on children. Additionally, most of the long-term studies that proponents cite to support current "gendering-affirming" protocols are poorly designed. As the report summarized: "As a rule, there is no control group in the studies." This means that any effects are "often assessed at group level and not at individual level, so that unwanted effects for some patients can be masked by improvement in the rest of the group." The results are also skewed by factors such as patient dropout and a failure to make contact for follow-ups. In other words, the numbers are played with to get the desired result. At the heart of the case for so-called "gender-affirming care" is the claim that transition prevents suicide. Research, however, shows the opposite. In a summary of recent research, Ben Johnson described how life satisfaction among those who undergo "transition" surgeries decreases rather than increases. Another study published last month found that self-identifying transgender individuals—not necessarily those who have had transition surgery—have high levels of loneliness. These studies confirm the findings of one of the best studies on the effect that transitioning has on the mental health of patients, which finds that those who undergo gender transition are over 19 times more likely to commit suicide than their peers. Given the clear dearth of quality research on the long-term effects of chemical and surgical "transition" interventions, any promotion of such controversial medicine is motivated not by science but by ideology. At the heart of transgender ideology is a belief that the physical, human body, specifically our God-given biological sex, does not constitute what it means to be a person. Rather the person is an intangible self, separate from the body, that can only be defined by one's own inner sense of self. Motivated by this central belief, activists tailor their views on health and wellness to match. Health, for them, is ultimately defined by the satisfaction of the immaterial self, not one's physical wellbeing. So the harms to one's body found in transitioning are worth the actualization of the inner self's true gender. Like every false ideology, transgender ideology is at odds with reality. As much as transgender activists want to say "gender-affirming care" will bring people satisfaction, our experience of God's creation finds just the opposite. While more research may be necessary, studies indicate that gender transition surgery, on the whole, exacerbates patients' unhappiness. This tells us that, as much as we'd like to disregard and deny the reality of our God-given bodies, they are a vital part of us that should not be discarded for the sake of our own sinful designs. Rather than trying to destroy the body, care that truly affirms gender would seek to reconcile people with their God-given bodies, helping them simultaneously accept the gift of the body and lament its brokenness. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Eckert. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Last year, after a gunman opened fire in a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs, killing five and injuring 19, vandals graffitied the property of Focus on the Family, accusing them of being responsible for the horrific crime. The shooting was actually carried out by someone who identified as LGBT and had visited the nightclub with his mom. A few days later, on the steps of the Supreme Court, members of the Christian legal advocacy group, Alliance Defending Freedom, were met by protestors who called them a "hate group" for defending the constitutionally protected religious freedom of a Christian graphic designer. To follow Christ today invites false accusations and waves of hostility. That's why I've invited Kristen Waggoner, CEO and general counsel of ADF, and Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, to join me for the Great Lakes Symposium on Christian Worldview on July 27th at 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Go to colsoncenter.org/greatlakes to attend live or join the livestream. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

New evidence, reports Nathan Steinmeyer of the Biblical Archaeology Society, is confirming the biblical description of the kingdom of Judah as it existed in King David's time. This is significant, according to Steinmeyer, because "[d]espite King David's prominence in the Hebrew Bible, little archaeological evidence has been directly linked to the early years of the Kingdom of Judah." Because of this apparent discrepancy between the archeological record and the biblical description of the region during the 10th-century B.C., "some scholars have argued that Judah only became a developed polity in the ninth or even eighth century B.C.E." Recently, however, an article published in the Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology by renowned Hebrew University archeologist Yosef Garfinkel, whose team has been digging four major sites in the Judean foothills since 2007, makes claims that "completely transforms the state of research." Newly exposed settlement layers reveal a number of population centers with writing, housing, and casemate [or double] city walls, which form the kind of fortified cities described in 1 and 2 Samuel. These cities, at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Khirbet el-Ra'i, Socoh, and Lachish may have been the nucleus of the kingdom of Judah. Furthermore, Garfinkel notes, the ancient city of Hebron makes an ideal center point for this kingdom and matches the biblical record, which states that David was crowned in Hebron and only later moved to Jerusalem seven years into his reign. A number of other findings from these sites also confirm the biblical narrative. Rectangular beams in groups of three match descriptions of Solomon's palace and temple and indicate that the pattern was used at the time of King Solomon's reign. Tenth-century fortifications in the city of Lachish correspond to the biblical account of King Rehoboam. The Judean city of Khirbet Qeiyafa sits across the Elah Valley from the major Philistine city of Gath—matching descriptions of conflict between the House of David and these neighbors. Contra the widely accepted scholarly claims of the 1990s, which argued that Judea was "empty of population" in the time described by the Bible, Garfinkel's findings suggest that 10th-century Judea was a young, expanding kingdom. Archaeological work is complicated and often incomplete. Still, it is remarkable how often the evidence, even as it piles up, confirms biblical accounts of history. According to Jewish archeologist Nelson Gluek, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference." This, even as "[s]cores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." The reason archeological confirmation matters is because Christianity is uniquely grounded in history as it actually happened. Some religions, like Buddhism or Hinduism, are insulated from verifiable tests of logic, reason, or human history, claiming to reveal only spiritual truths. Other religions, such as Islam, ground some traditions in history while making its central claims, such as the inspiration of the Qur'an, an article of pure faith. (For the record, the claim the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved fails even basic challenges of historical and textual criticism.) While these other belief systems are "non-falsifiable," meaning they are so far removed from the world of evidence it is impossible to show whether they're true or false, Christianity claims that its most important events, particularly the events of Israel and the life of Jesus Christ, actually happened. The events of the Bible occurred in actual history and are open to historical scrutiny—most notably the death and resurrection of Jesus. Otherwise, the apostles Peter and Paul made clear, we are left with only cleverly devised myths and faith that is futile. Christians need not fear rigorous scholarship, especially not the booming world of ancient archeology. The more we dig into the dirt of history, the more we are reminded that God has always been, and remains today, active in the world He made. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

According to a recent report on the online source FiveThirtyEight, the Dobbs decision has made a big difference. "There were almost 94,000 fewer abortions in states that implemented bans post-Dobbs, just between July and March," author Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux summarized in a Twitter thread. "Almost 100k affected and that's not even the full year." And, in states without bans, "Abortions rose by ~70,000." In other words, the Dobbs decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the abortion decision back to the states has meant a net decrease of 24,000 abortions nationwide. Some bans have had a more significant impact than others. For example, abortion in states that "have banned abortion after six weeks ... [abortions] tend to drop by 50-60%. If that happened in FL, where a six-week ban is pending, we could be talking about 4k fewer abortions MONTHLY." To be clear, Thomson-DeVeaux is alarmed by these numbers. At the same time, data points to huge shifts in how abortion is attained in America, most notably abortion tourism and an uptick in chemical abortions. So, the work continues. And yet, it is safe to say that elections matter. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, written over 4,000 years ago, Enkidu, the great friend of the demigod Gilgamesh, dies. Afraid of death, Gilgamesh asks the sage Utnapishtim, the only survivor of the Great Flood, about the secret to immortality. Utnapishtim gives Gilgamesh a number of tasks, all of which he fails. But that was the point. Gilgamesh learned that immortality is beyond his grasp and returns to Uruk to live out the rest of his life as king. The first emperor of China was Shi Huang Di. Buried in a tomb decorated with the famous terracotta soldiers, he also feared death and called on Chinese alchemists to create an elixir that would allow him to live forever. The alchemists believed they could make immortality possible through a perfect balance of the five elements: water, wood, fire, earth, and metal. Unfortunately for the emperor, the elixir contained mercury (because it is both a liquid and a metal), which likely contributed to the emperor's death. Attempts to achieve immortality have continued (and continued to fail) right up to our own time. Medieval European alchemists believed they could produce "the philosopher's stone," which would perfect the imperfect, turning lead into gold and making mortal life immortal. Enlightenment thinkers of the late 18th century rejected the mysticism of alchemy but continued to speculate about the means to attain physical immortality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was written as a cautionary tale about scientific hubris, in response to the more modern attempts of medicine and biology to preserve, extend, and improve life. Today, the quest for immortality continues. Through cryogenics, freshly deceased persons or animals are frozen, their blood replaced with "medical grade antifreeze" to prevent ice crystals from destroying cells. So, the idea goes, once medical technology is able to heal whatever caused their deaths, these creatures can be thawed, healed, and restored to life, possibly with additional enhancements. This approach assumes, among other things, that life and memory can be repaired if the body is repaired and the heart restarted. In other words, life is seen in purely mechanical terms. This is an equal and opposite error to those pursuing immortality through cybertechnologies, believing that if our consciousness can be downloaded into computers, we can continue to exist as a sort of ghost in a machine. In this techno-gnosticism, our bodies are optional and not a necessary part of life. In this way of thinking, we are our minds, and our minds are nothing more than sophisticated software that can be downloaded into a computer, machine, or perhaps a new robotic body. Other modern attempts at the Fountain of Youth—such as nutritional strategies, supplements, alternative medical practices, and gene-editing technologies like CRISPR—do not seek as much to avoid death as to extend life. These range from becoming more serious about healthy living to more extreme alternatives. A number of billionaires have been investing in research into life extension, including Sam Altman of OpenAI, Jeff Bezos, Google co-founder Larry Page, and Brian Armstrong of Coinbase. Some believe that our medical technologies will eventually reach a state of "Longevity Escape Velocity," in which advances are increasing lifespans faster than the years go by, therefore bringing us to the point of immortality. Despite our long history of failed attempts to live forever, many of which caused more harm than good, scientific hubris remains a temptation almost impossible to avoid. But we should take Mary Shelley's warnings seriously. Some of these longevity experiments will be interesting and ultimately harmless. Some may even help. Others, such as those involving gene-editing technology, will leave their own monsters waiting in the shadows, and it is unlikely, if history is any indication, that we will be able to see them coming. A more basic problem is trying to defeat death while thinking it is only a material problem to be solved. No latter-day elixir can satisfy our fear of death, which is a physical consequence of metaphysical realities. What ancient emperors and modern tech barons so desperately seek is exactly what's offered in Christ: His eternal life exchanged for our mortal, sinful life. This exchange does not come from a laboratory bottle filled with who knows what, but from an empty tomb. Ultimately, because He defeated death, our bodies will be perfected beyond what even the most optimistic biohacker could dream. Yes, death remains an enemy. But it is a defeated foe, and all who are in Christ will ultimately see its defeat when we are resurrected to life eternal. This is the truth behind what are reported to have been Tim Keller's final words: "There is no downside for me leaving, not in the slightest." And Dietrich Bonhoeffer's, as well: "This is the end—for me, the beginning of life." This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in

John and Maria discuss the new documentary on the Duggar family, Oklahoma approves a Catholic charter school, and a Jeopardy! panel shows its ignorance of the Bible. — Recommendations — Dad, How Do I? YouTube channel The River by Peter Heller For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Several years ago, a New York Times headline read, "Is Your Child Lying to You? That's Good." Parents, the author said, shouldn't be upset about their young fibbers because studies show that kids who lie are more intelligent and "socially adept" than those who don't. And for children who aren't quite so good at lying, parents can "speed up the process" through training exercises. If, as the author claims, lying is good for your brain, then the sooner kids start lying, the better. I wish I were making that up, but I'm not. The author's argument is fully consistent with a worldview that sees cognitive ability as the highest quality we should value and cultivate in children. But cognitive intelligence isn't the only kind. There's also moral intelligence—knowing the right thing to do in a morally charged universe. And there's relational intelligence—knowing how best to live in relationship with others, for their good, not just our own. And never forget, "studies" and "research" are never neutral . . . . This Point was originally published on January 19, 2018. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

On December 6, 1907, a massive explosion decimated a coal mine in Monongah, West Virginia. Three hundred and sixty-two miners were killed, making this the worst mining disaster in U.S. history. The tragedy devastated the small town and led eventually to the establishment of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The Monongah mine disaster also marked another beginning. Several months after the explosion, a local church held a special service in honor of the 362 miners, most of whom had left behind wives and children. This is the first event on record in the United States set aside specifically to honor dads. Two years later, a woman from Spokane who, along with her five siblings, was raised by her widowed father, began a public campaign to establish a national Father's Day. A day for mothers was already in the works and, according to historical accounts, was a much easier sell to the public. By 1916, President Woodrow Wilson had officially recognized Father's Day, though it would not be recognized as a national holiday until 1972. A little over a hundred years after the mining disaster that birthed Father's Day, the United States is now suffering a crisis of fatherlessness. One in four American kids are, like so many in that West Virginia town, growing up without their father at home. That amounts to 18.5 million kids. If statistics hold, this means that 18.5 million children are three times more likely to engage in criminal activity than those who have dads at home. Those 18.5 million kids are more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier, are less likely to go to college, more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, more likely to struggle academically, are twice as likely to commit suicide, and much more likely to commit violence. The vast majority of mass shooters in the past 20 years were young men who were, in some way, estranged from their fathers. Almost any social good that can be named is dependent on dads who commit to their families and is at risk when they don't. This does not mean that every child who grows up without dad in the home will not succeed. Thank God for the millions of grandparents, relatives, friends, neighbors, and especially single moms who heroically raise children in difficult circumstances. Nor does it mean that a faithful dad at home guarantees success for children. Many people squander the amazing inheritance with which they are blessed. Put differently, statistics do not determine the destiny of individuals. At the same time, statistics predict the future of societies. Though fatherlessness is correlated with almost every major cultural crisis of the 21st century, the importance of dads remains consistently underestimated and is even undermined. So-called "same-sex marriage" and adoption by same-sex couples suggest that either moms or dads really aren't that important when it comes to raising children. Legalized abortion has effectively catechized generations of men into believing they are not obligated to take responsibility for children that result from their sexual activity and catechized generations of women into believing they've no right to expect that commitment from men. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all women who seek abortions do so because they've been abandoned by their baby's father. I'm especially grateful for the Institute for Family Studies, which continues to research and report the statistical importance of dads. Just as God designed procreation to require one man and one woman, He meant for that man and that woman to raise their child. Fathers love, teach, provide for, and nurture both sons and daughters in ways moms can't. The same goes for moms. We also know the importance of fathers because God has revealed Himself as a Father. This striking designation should cause every earthly father to tremble. We have an awesome responsibility, and the stakes couldn't be higher. Finally, every person ever created knows in their bones the irreplaceable importance of fathers, either because of the comfort, steadiness, and love we received from an attentive dad, or because of the pain of his absence. Committed dads are essential ingredients for healthy kids, healthy families, and healthy societies (and specifically for more healthy men). Showing up, sticking around, and discipling kids as only a father can is a powerful witness to the beautiful design and the steadfast love of our own heavenly Father. Every kid needs and deserves one. This Breakpoint was co-authored by Maria Baer. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Statistical data from the General Social Survey shows that, contrary to what many think, the overwhelming majority of Americans—a whopping 86%—believe in God at some level. For every American that doesn't believe in God, there are seven who do. Of course, just because 4 out of 5 Americans think God exists doesn't mean they believe in the same God or, for that matter, in the God that actually exists. What we believe about God is a defining aspect of our lives. As A.W. Tozer wrote, "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." What we believe about God shapes what we believe about the rest of life, including those ultimate, worldview-shaping questions of origin, identity, meaning, morality, and destiny. And the more a group of people is unmoored from the truth about these things together, the more disconnected they are from those essentials of a healthy and functioning society, such as justice, human dignity, and the care and protection of children. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

An argument commonly used to justify radical ideologies about gender and sexuality is the existence of so-called "third" genders in various cultures throughout history. For example, gender "workbooks" that are often promoted in schools, counseling offices, and online, aimed at children and their parents, suggest that "third" genders prove that transgender identities have historical precedent and are therefore not just products of a modern fad. Among the most cited examples are the Native American "Two-spirit," Thailand's "Kathoey" (regularly translated as "Ladyboy"), Ancient Middle East's "Sal-zikrum," the "Fa'afafine" of Samoa, the "Hijra" of India, and the "Muxe" of Southern Mexico. This long list of those who didn't conform to male and female norms of their cultures may seem to be a compelling argument. However, a quick look at so-called "third" gender people reveals that they are not based on the same presuppositions as modern transgender ideology. At the heart of contemporary gender ideology is a rejection of the so-called "gender binary," that only two genders exist, as well as any essential link between biological sex and gender. The contention is that biological sex is itself "assigned" and therefore not determinative of one's gender identity, which is, after all, nothing more than a social construct. In most cases, labeling non-conforming individuals as "third genders" is an anachronism forced upon people who presumed the reality of biological sex, gender roles, and the so-called "gender binary." For example, the word Fa'afafine, literally translated, means "in the manner of a woman." The name refers to Samoan men who act like, live as, and associate with women. Historically, a Fa'afafine is a boy chosen by his family at a young age to help the mother with household tasks, often because there was no daughter born to the family. In other words, the Fa'afafine are not those "born into the wrong body" who express "their true selves." Nor is the choice based on the boy being a homosexual or even noticeably feminine. Rather, the choice is made for them by a father in a culture committed to distinct gender roles. It's also notable that, in this context, those who are identified as Fa'afafine are not considered to be female, nor are they considered a wife or a mother. They are recognized as men who act like women. This is not a culture that denies sexual difference. The Native American "two-spirit" is a neologism created in 1990 to refer to so-called "third" genders in those cultures. However, "two-spirit" is not monolithic. Each Native American tribe had different ways of describing gender-bending individuals, and most refer to a member of one sex who acts stereotypically like the opposite sex. For example, the Lakota "Winkte," which has been categorized under "two-spirit," refers to a man who is "like a woman." Such identification relies on the fact of binary gender roles. It is not a "third" gender. Of course, modern transgender ideology also relies on the gender binary that it rejects. Rigid masculine or feminine stereotypes determine whether someone's "true identity" is at odds with their bodies. A boy is considered a girl if he likes pink or plays house or even occasionally enjoys stereotypical "feminine" habits or games. In the same way, a girl who likes trucks or playing in the dirt isn't just a tomboy but an actual boy. Amidst all the talk about fluidity and gender spectrums, and sexual identity being a social construct, transgender ideology relies on the grossest, rigid stereotypes. Thus, transgender ideology not only contradicts itself, it also perpetuates the very problem it claims to solve. In the second half of the last century, a cacophony of voices denounced rigid stereotypes as harmful and restrictive, especially for children. The social contagion of those who struggle with the identities today do so because of narrow stereotypes that are treated as absolute and definitive. Girls are no longer allowed to behave "like boys." Rather, they must be boys. And if a boy wants to be a girl, that means embracing the most frilly, suggestive, stereotypes thinkable. All of this ignores the perfectly normal and natural variety found among men and women, long before novel sexual ideologies became new articles of faith for America's cultural priests. (It's also worth mentioning that pointing to other cultures to justify a modern ideology commits the "noble savage" mistake. Just because some other culture did it does not make it right. Imagine suggesting that because ancient cultures practiced cannibalism or slavery, then we should too.) To be made in the image of God is to be male or female. The solution for today's poor thinking is not to default to some shallow stereotype, any more than it is to embrace some harmful practice of some ancient culture. Rather, it is to affirm, at the deepest level, informed by Scripture and biology, the reality and beauty of complementary sexual difference. This Breakpoi

Apparently, Josh Timonen, once a right-hand man of New Atheist author Richard Dawkins, has converted to Christianity. Timonen began working with Dawkins back in 2006, just before the publication of Dawkins' bestseller, The God Delusion, helping with Dawkins' website, some documentaries, as well as his foundation and merchandise. The two parted ways due to a legal dispute. Later, Timonen relocated his family during the pandemic, and they started attending a church so that his young daughter could make friends. At that church, Timonen and his wife began to reconsider Christianity and, after reading Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, Timonen was confronted with the historical fact of Jesus' life, ministry, and resurrection, all of which he had dismissed early on in his atheism. Within the year, Josh and his wife placed their faith in Christ. Timonen's story is a reminder that God is at work and that through Christ, can reconcile us to Himself, even "while we were enemies" (Romans 5:10). For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org