Breakpoint

Maria and John hold a lively conversation about human dignity in the Declaration of Independence, the correlation of marijuana use to teen mental health, and the surge in purchases of the Plan B morning-after pill.

Recently, Ezra Klein wrote a column attempting to answer a question he says he is asked all the time: Should today's adults have kids, given the climate crisis? Klein received a good bit of pushback for the odd premise of the question, which seems to reveal more about the company he keeps than actual sentiment. After all, according to Pew Research, only a tiny fraction of childless adults cite climate worries as their motivation. But the most poignant part of Klein's piece is what it assumes. Think about it: No one is wondering whether adults should abstain from sex in order to keep children from being born onto this doomed planet. Just whether they should use birth control and have abortions in order to keep children from being born onto this doomed planet. Childbearing is seen as a technologically controlled choice, completely independent of the act that causes it. This is how much technologies can change how we think about the world and why Christians must always approach new biotechnologies by first asking what humans are for. And, as for his original question—yes, we should still have children.

According to the writer of Proverbs, "death and life are in the power of the tongue." So is cultural change, which most often comes with efforts to change language use and the definitions of words. For example, Harvard Medical molecular biologist David Sinclair is combining innovation in the lab with innovation in language. In a recent CNN article, one of Sinclair's financial backers described the goal of his research as changing the definition of the word "aging." He wants to "make aging a disease." Sinclair claims to have successfully interrupted the aging process in mice by turning adult cells back into stem cells. Some animals are designed with a similar capability, albeit in a more limited way—think, for example, of an octopus re-growing a leg that has been cut off. Using that same idea, what Sinclair calls an "ancient regeneration system," he hopes to regenerate cells that deteriorate with age. Already, he has been able to repair ocular cells in older mice, allowing them to recover their "youthful" eyesight. His ultimate aim, of course, is to develop anti-aging therapies for humans. Though some concern has been directed toward the safety of Sinclair's process, what goes largely unquestioned in media coverage is Sinclair's chief aim. In other words, as so much medical ethics goes these days, if we can do it, then we should. Medical ethics from a Christian worldview perspective is not that simple. Whenever Christians can affirm aspects of work like David Sinclair's, which attempts to overcome the consequences of the fall, we should. The Bible teaches that death is an enemy, and that humans were not made to die. And humans should recognize that the ingenuity and passion for exploration that often inspires medical progress are God-given. To accuse people like Sinclair of "playing God," as if that were an insult, is not helpful. After all, according to Genesis 1 and 2, human beings were created by God to, in a sense, "play God." We are not to pretend that we are God, of course, but He did gift us with the ability to work alongside Him to accomplish His purposes for the world He made. After the fall, He promises to eventually restore His creation, so our work alongside Him continues. The mandate to build and create, tending the garden of His world, is to be done within the moral limits that reflect His character and how He created the world. Within this framework, causing or hastening death is a great evil, but so can be attempts to avoid death "at all costs." Jesus' own death was an act of unprecedented evil but also only fully understood in the context of His obedience to the Father's will. Jesus lay down His life, and many Christians have followed in His footsteps. Thus, there are certain moral goods—such as the will of God—that are higher than avoiding death. Keeping these sorts of things straight is essential to ethically pursuing and employing technologies, like those that promise to "reverse aging." In his book Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, bioethicist and theologian Gilbert Meilaender counsels Christians to view the freedom to pursue medical progress not as freedom from restraints, such as death. Instead, we should consider ourselves free to work alongside God imitating Him on the path He set out for human flourishing. This will mean, very often in fact, not doing (as God described the men who built the tower of Babel) "whatever comes into our minds to do." Meilaender counsels Christians to fight the temptation to use medicine, not merely as a way to care for our bodies, but from the desire to control them. If the chief end of medical research and practice is to live on our own terms, we will inevitably make moral compromises along the way. It was the serpent who promised Eve that she could live as she wished but evade death, which was not only a lie, but not sufficient justification for attempting to usurp the authority that only belongs to God. The goal of medical research and practice should be to help people flourish in the bodies, times, places, and limits that God has given us. From this beginning, Meilaender suggests that the "principle" which should "govern Christian compassion" is not to "minimize suffering," but to "maximize care." Our purpose is not to avoid suffering or even death at all costs despite that they are effects of the fall we are called to oppose. Rather, we take into account that in God's mercy, even our suffering can be redeemed for good. We lament the hard realities of our fallen world, and we seek to understand them within the larger context of creation and resurrection. Thus, we know that death is not the end of life, nor is life only a prerequisite to death.

Last month, a New York court ruled that Happy the elephant should not legally be considered a person. An organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project had sued the Bronx Zoo for "imprisoning" Happy, arguing it should be set free since it showed signs of "self-awareness." "While no one disputes the impressive capabilities of elephants. ..." Janet DiFiore, the chief judge, wrote, "[h]abeas corpus is a procedural vehicle intended to secure the liberty rights of human beings who are unlawfully restrained, not nonhuman animals." Confusion is inevitable whenever a culture untethers itself from all sources of truth. If there's no God, then people aren't in His image. So why shouldn't animals have the same rights we do? And if our rights aren't based in our design, the only option is to base them on some slippery criteria like "self-awareness" or intelligence. But, of course, that way of thinking also makes it possible to not extend human rights to certain humans. According to Judge DiFiore, granting Happy "personhood status" would be legally "destabilizing." In fact, the worldview that animated this legal comedy to begin with is destabilizing. When it comes to human rights, only Christianity offers solid ground.

Last year, a coalition of organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Policy Alliance, Colson Center, and the Heritage Foundation, teamed up to issue a Promise to America's Children, a commitment to protect their minds, their bodies, and their most important relationships amid this hypersexualized culture. Today, we join again, this time to issue a Promise to America's Parents. Why? As the website puts it, Local, state, and federal government policies are imposing ideologies that divide children by race and promote the falsehood that a boy can become a girl or vice-versa. Some schools are treating children as if they are the opposite sex without the permission of parents. Medical professionals are performing harmful experiments on children who are emotionally distressed about their bodies. To protect children, parents need laws that protect their rights. Simply put, no government entity should usurp the place of parents. In too many classrooms, progressive ideas are forced on children, targeting their hearts, minds, and identities. A reigning ideology in education is critical theory which, in its various forms, denies that every single person is made in the image of God. Thus, kids are taught to see other people in simplistic categories of oppressed or oppressor, to see Christianity as an oppressive and destructive historical force, and to see themselves primarily in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Promise to America's Parents galvanizes parents to "A.C.T."—an acronym referring to accountability, choice, and transparency—on behalf of their children. According to the Promise, Children belong first and foremost to their families. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, they are not "mere creatures of the state." The unique and intimate relationship between a parent and a child creates a duty and a corresponding natural right. Parental rights are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. However, courts have not consistently protected parental rights against government interference and invasion as they should. In the "A.C.T." acronym, accountability means that "Every mother or father may hold the government accountable for infringing on their rights to care for their child." Choice means that "Every mother or father has the responsibility and right to choose the education and medical treatment that they deem best for their child." Thus, neither schools, nor healthcare providers, nor schools acting like healthcare providers should push a child toward an alternative gender without the parents' permission. Schools also must not restrict a child's speech by creating vague anti-racist policies that would prohibit differing viewpoints being stated. Transparency means that "Every mother or father has the right to know about what their child is learning, their child's health, and any harms to them." Parents have the right to know the content within the curriculum, from textbooks to other materials. Parents have the right to know the content of their children's files. Specifically, no separate files should be kept to maintain secretive use of counseling, gender pronouns, or treatments. Please read the whole Promise to America's Parents at promisetoAmericasparents.org. There's also a free downloadable toolkit, explaining parental rights at schools and in doctors' offices. It also provides practical advice on how to proceed if a child describes their school day, and warning lights start flashing in your head. For example, the toolkit explains what you can and cannot ask for in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, how to access the school's curriculum, securing opt-out policies for classroom instruction that conflicts with religious or moral beliefs, and how to help children report statements or actions that treat students differently because of their race, religion, or moral views. There are also plenty of stories on the Promise website about parents who took a stand. Two parents whose stories are told are plaintiffs in cases represented by ADF. Melissa Riley says of her son, who is biracial, "He is changing . . . . If things don't go his way or things seem unfair, he will now claim it's racism. He never did that before." Another parent, Carlos Ibenez is a plaintiff because his daughter was told in middle school that as a Latina, she wouldn't succeed because the system was set up to privilege people with white skin. Parents can protect their children from indoctrination that targets the mind and the heart. Parents can protect their children from being co-opted by the state. Please, visit promisetoAmericasparents.org.

According to a recent poll conducted by Gallup, the portion of Americans who believe in God has dropped to barely over 80%. That's still a majority, but the one-in-five who don't believe is the highest number ever recorded in this country. Anyone seeking to understand this data should remember something theologian Carl F.H. Henry said, 70 years ago, when told that 99% of Americans believed in God: "The vast majority of Americans today may believe in a ghost god, in a phantom god, in a god who makes very little difference in the great decisions of life and even less in the cares of everyday existence." Imaginary gods, like imaginary friends, make us feel good for a time, but lose their staying power. That's true for individuals and for societies—which is why Christians must be clear on Who God is as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, in creation, and in Christ... not a god we create in our own image.

What looks like good news for a nation in the midst of a demographic crisis isn't really. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that "U.S. births increased last year for the first time in seven years." In 2020, the U.S. fertility rate dipped to 1.64—the lowest "since the government began tracking it in the 1930s." In 2021, the rate increased for the first time since 2014, to 1.66. Though that sounds like good news, that's a lower spike than we'd historically expect during something that keeps everyone at home, such as a pandemic. One economist has called it a "minor blip" that "still leaves us on a long-term trajectory towards lower births." That's because the replacement rate is at least 2.1, and some scholars think 1.7 is the threshold of no return. Nations that fail to replace their population face economic stagnation and social instability. A society committed to adult happiness over the future and the well-being of children will be a nation that fails to replace its population. In other words, birth rates are more than statistics and historic predictors. They reflect a nation's priorities, values, and worldview.

The first step in making abortion unthinkable has been taken. Now that the Supreme Court has reversed Roe v. Wade with its ruling in the Dobbs case, it's time to roll up our sleeves and work towards building a culture of life. This is not the time to back off, or as some Christians have suggested, to tone it down. Back in May, at the "Preparing for a Post-Roe World" event at the Wilberforce Weekend, Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins issued a powerful and stirring challenge. Here's Kristan: Friends, tonight, I'm here to ask you to do something that's never been done before in the history of our world. I'm here to ask you, the Church, to join with the pro-life generation to put our nation back together in a post-Roe v. Wade world. And I implore you to help us achieve this mission that has thus far spanned five decades—church by church, city by city, state by state—as we move forward to make abortion unthinkable. Friends, the hour is upon us—something that we have all worked for, that many of you were working for before I was even created. Step one of our mission is almost complete. But there's so many more steps we have to go. And the Church must rise to the challenge, and you are being called to lead it. Make no mistake. The battles that we face in the coming months, the coming weeks will be physical, they'll be political, and they'll be spiritual. In our city streets, the violence that so many support behind the closed doors of the Planned Parenthood will be committed openly. And those in power will look the other way. In statehouses, those who we fought to elect will be forced to finally act to actually cast a vote that will determine the fate of lives. And I predict some of them who say that they're with us will not be so. And in our homes, our daughters and our granddaughters will start to order chemical abortion pills shipped from foreign countries or other states that could very well result in her own injury, infertility, or death. She'll be aborting her child, your grandchild, your great-grandchild in her bathroom, and every morning she'll return to the scene of that crime. In our workplaces, women and men will be hurting from past abortion decisions, and they'll be made to finally reckon with the choice that they made decades ago that they've been suppressing for years. And in our churches, what will we be doing? Will we be a thermostat that can transform the mores of our society—of our country—or will we simply sit back and be a thermometer? I believe it's not too late to become the former, but this relies on you. First, I must ask you to speak truth at your church, especially to this young generation who has never lived in America without legal abortion. Show your youth group the truth about the violence of abortion. Show them how they can actually step up to serve and transform. Convince your pastor—6% of which say that they've given a sermon on abortion in the past year—convince them to speak. Start a ministry for men and women hurting from past abortions. Start a ministry for pregnant and parenting women and men and families in need. A great first step is to join Students for Life and the Colson Center for the national Standing with Her Sunday simulcast. We're going to be launching August 28, and the goal is to get our churches all the tools that they need to support her. The second thing you can do is envision what your community will look like and must look like in the post-Roe era. Ask yourself how your church can step up—what you can do. And I have to warn you—envisioning things is a little dangerous. It's free—doesn't take any money—but it's powerful. Quell the flames of fear that Planned Parenthood is fanning in our nation. Show them we actually have a progressive view for our families and women in America. This is 2022. This is not 1952. No woman in 2022 America should ever have to choose between the life of her child for her education or for her career goals. Tell America about the 3,000 nonviolent pregnancy centers, the more than 400 maternity homes that vastly outnumber the abortion facilities in our country. Tell America about support: AfterAbortion.org, abortionpillreversal.org, standingwithyou.org—all the resources we have in place. This is fundamental. At Students for Life, we've knocked on 120,000 doors in the last year in neighborhoods in 20 cities that surround an abortion facility. And 73% of the neighbors we speak to have no clue that the pregnancy center exists in our community—have never even heard about it. Friends, when the Supreme Court finally reverses its anti-science Roe v. Wade decision, what choice, what decision are you going to make? What course of action will you commit to taking that will help us determine the fate of this cause—the greatest human rights struggle in the history of our life? Tonight, I implore you. Make a decision. Church, make a decision for a positive peace—to stand for innocent children and their mothers. Get to work to ensure that no

As part of The Gospel Coalition's "Good Faith Debates," Scott Klusendorf and fellow pro-life advocate Karen Swallow Prior discuss what it means to stand for life today. Is it enough to oppose abortion? Or must the pro-life movement take on a wider range of causes? The exchange brings clarity to a hot button issue. Both agree that Christians should be consistent, and that our love for neighbor and commitment to life should be reflected in how we think about and address other issues, from genocide to racism, from artificial reproductive technologies to poverty. However, while the Christian life cannot be reduced to just one issue, the greatest injustices require our greatest attention. Pro-lifers should never apologize for focusing on and working tirelessly to end abortion, especially when about 900,000 children are aborted every year. So, we should celebrate the end of Roe, work for state-level protections for the preborn, speak with moral clarity on abortion, and help the women who need it most. Now is the time to double down, not back off.

Eleven years ago today, Chuck Colson delivered a Breakpoint commentary on what would be his last July 4 holiday. In it, Chuck reflected on the basis of our national identity. Specifically, he recognized that the only true 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 rights are granted ultimately by God, 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 relevant today, and perhaps even more important for us to understand. From all of us at the Colson Center, Happy 4th!

After discussing the horrific death of migrants in San Antonio, John and Maria talk about the reactions of some Christians to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They analyze the hedging that is occurring and insist there's no shame in being grateful. Afterward, they parse misunderstandings of the establishment clause for Supreme Court cases on religious liberty. — Recommendations — What is a Woman>> Tearing Us Apart>> — In Show References — Church of Spies: The Pope's Secret War Against Hitler "The Vatican's stance toward Nazism is fiercely debated. History has accused wartime pontiff Pius the Twelfth of complicity in the Holocaust and dubbed him "Hitler's Pope. But a key part of the story has remained untold" https://www.amazon.com/Church-Spies-Secret-Against-Hitler/dp/0465094112 On a Texas road called 'the mouth of the wolf,' a semitruck packed with migrants was abandoned in the sweltering heat "A distant cry led a worker Monday evening to a tractor-trailer abandoned on a desolate country road under the blazing Texas sun on the outskirts of the city." https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/us/san-antonio-migrant-truck-deaths/index.html John Mark Mcmillan - Economy

According to The Economist, potential employees are beginning to discover the cost of their online behavior. "The rise of the online self means the employer's eye can travel … past your desk, past your office and into your home, family and even (through ill-judged social-media posts) your most intimate thoughts. Today, companies wield the sort of spy power less commonly associated with directors than with dictators, even deities." Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise since our "most intimate thoughts" aren't online in the first place unless someone chooses to post them. Still, the fact that some believe there should be a kind of immunity for bad behavior online points to a deeper truth about technology: Our tools shape us whether we like it or not. For example, studies show that "negativity" spreads more easily than "positivity" online. What we'd never say to someone's face, we'll put on Twitter. What we'd never say about a neighbor, we'll post on Nextdoor. We aren't two people. The best advice for Christians, whether online or off, is to "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer."

Today marks the death of Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896), a Christian whose storytelling ability inspired thousands to see the evils of slavery. Born in Litchfield, Connecticut, Harriet was the sixth child of prominent Presbyterian minister Lyman Beecher. Unlike many girls from that time period, she received a first-class education, attending the Hartford Female Seminary which was run by her older sister Catharine. In 1832, Harriet's father became president of Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio. The city was booming at the time, but competition for jobs between Irish immigrants and runaway slaves often erupted in violence, with the Irish attacking the black community. In 1834, the seminary held debates about slavery that, won by abolitionists, may have helped spur anti-abolitionist riots in 1836 and 1841. It was by witnessing these events that Harriet not only became interested in the issue of slavery, but also began to interview runaway slaves. Harriet and her husband Rev. Calvin Stowe relocated to Maine in 1850. That same year, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which prohibited aiding runaway slaves, even in free states. As ardent abolitionists, the Stowes ignored this law. In fact, they made their home a station on the Underground Railroad. After losing her 18-month-old son, Stowe's sympathy for slaves separated from their families on the auction block deepened. Inspired by a vision of a dying slave, which she claimed to have experienced during Communion at her church, Stowe began to write the book for which she is now so well known. It is a book that can truly be said to have changed the world. Uncle Tom's Cabin was originally published as weekly installments in the anti-slavery journal The National Era, between June 5, 1851, and April 1, 1852. It was first published in book form in March of 1852, and sold an unprecedented 300,000 copies within its first year. By November of that same year, it was made into a play in New York. By 1857, the novel had been translated into 20 languages. Eventually, Uncle Tom's Cabin would become the second bestselling book of the 19th century after the Bible. While the main theme of the book is the evil of slavery, it also includes significant reflections on the nature of Christianity, Christian responsibility, and Christian love. In the end, Stowe clearly and compellingly presents slavery as incompatible with Christian theology. In this, she followed the mainstream of Christian tradition since the Middle Ages. Stowe hoped her book would show how slavery affected, not just those directly involved, but everyone in society. She also hoped to document the horrors of slavery which she had learned directly from escaped slaves. In each of these aims, the book succeeded admirably. Its popularity energized the abolitionist movement in the North, and prominent abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass promoted it as a vital tool in the battle against slavery. Not surprisingly, Uncle Tom's Cabin generated significant backlash in the South. Southerners complained the novel was slanderous and accused Stowe of not knowing what she was talking about. Some Southern authors responded with novels of their own that defended slavery, but none that approached the success of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Stowe received hate mail from defenders of slavery in both the North and the South, including one package that contained the severed ear of a slave, ironic evidence for the accuracy of her description of slavery's horrors. In response to her critics, Stowe wrote A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, in which she documented the sources used in her novel, as well as the accounts that corroborated her descriptions. During the Civil War, Stowe was invited to the White House. Lincoln is said to have greeted her with the words, "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." Altogether, Stowe wrote 30 books, including novels, travel memoirs, and collections of articles and letters. As important as she was as an author, she was equally famous for her public stands on the important social issues of the day, from slavery to women's rights. Her courageous life is a profound example of someone using their calling to engage the world around them. By obeying God's calling on her life, using her God-given talent in the time and place in which He called her, she changed her world and continues to influence ours. May we also have the courage to do the same with our own skills in this cultural moment.

"For many years, the internet in China was seen as a channel for new thinking, or at least greater openness," writes Human Rights Watch researcher Yaqiu Wang. "Online discussions were relatively free and open, and users, especially younger ones, had an eager appetite for learning and debating big ideas about political systems and how China should be governed." That changed when Xi Jinping took power. Explaining what's known as China's "Great Firewall," Wang notes, "the government got savvier, and more aggressive about using its own technology." For example, dissidents, journalists, and public figures disappear frequently, sometimes often for minor infractions like logging onto Twitter. The state's actions have created "a generational split," says Wang. "[T]hose who experienced a relatively free internet as young people—many strongly resent the Great Firewall. Among people who started college after Xi took power, however, there is a strong impulse to defend it." It's an extreme example of how tools intended and used for good can also be harnessed for evil. The same resource that can promote flourishing can also promote tyranny. That's true everywhere, not just China.

In all the talk about racial injustices, the racial disparities for abortion are ignored. And that's because we would need to talk about marriage. I'm John Stonestreet, and this is Breakpoint. Recently in The Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley asked a provocative question, "Why Won't the Left Talk About Racial Disparities in Abortion?" In it, he describes how the "black abortion rate is nearly four times higher than the white rate," how more black babies in New York City are aborted than born, and how "[n]ationally, the number of babies aborted by black women each year far exceeds the combined number of blacks who drop out of school, are sent to prison and are murdered." Even books on racism by Christian publishers, for example, Jemar Tisby's How to Fight Racism, never mention the significant racial disparities that exist when it comes to abortion, even while spending significant time on other disparities, such as student achievement, incarceration, wealth, and healthcare in general. The new book Faithful Anti-Racism by Christian Barland Edmondson and Chad Brennan shares similar disparity stats to Tisby's, but the only mentions of abortion are embedded in quotations regarding conservative interests. According to Riley, one issue is that talking about the racial disparity when it comes to abortion would necessitate discussing how to "increase black marriage rates," since so many women having abortions are single. Riley states: One problem is that such a conversation requires frank talk about counterproductive attitudes toward marriage and solo parenting in low-income black communities. It requires discussing antisocial behavior and personal responsibility. Now, to be clear, disparities do not always point to injustice or racism. As Thaddeus Williams writes In Confronting Justice Without Compromising Truth, those who call themselves antiracists assume that disparities reveal widespread discrimination or institutional injustice. And disparities do sometimes point to systemic wrongs. Clearly, in Exodus 1, if the midwives Shiphrah and Puah had obeyed Pharoah when ordered to slaughter baby boys, a clear injustice would have created a disparity between the number of Hebrew boys born versus the number of Egyptian boys. Other times, disparities do not reveal an injustice. In his book, Williams describes how what appeared to be a racial disparity issue of injustice on the New Jersey Turnpike turned to be an issue cause by age instead. Disparities can have multiple factors. In the case of the high number of abortions of black babies, as we've shared on Breakpoint before, almost 80% of Planned Parenthood's clinics, according to a 2012 study, were near majority black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Pro-abortion advocates argue that the racial disparity for abortion is more about poverty. Perhaps, for example, the mother couldn't afford to care for another baby. According to Riley in the Wall Street Journal, however, this argument fails to explain why the abortion numbers among Hispanics who are impoverished are not comparable. Riley proposes that the high number of abortions of black babies is related to a reduced number of marriages. Quoting a book by Stanford law professor Ralph Richard Banks, Riley writes, A single woman with an unplanned pregnancy is about twice as likely as a married woman to abort. . . . Black women thus may have so many more abortions than other groups in part because they are so much less likely to be married. Since blacks who are married are much less likely to be in poverty, then why, he asks, aren't activists promoting black marriage? It's a good question. According to the Family Research Council, "Married-couple families generate the most income, on average" compared to single-parent families, cohabiting families, or divorced families. Other studies have shown that marriage provides health benefits and the ability to deal with stress. One individual courageous enough to talk about such issues is Anthony Bradley, a professor at The King's College and an Acton Research Fellow, whom Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family, and I hosted at an event, Lighthouse Voices, last February. Prof. Bradley points out again and again "that marriage is the vital/essential/the actual oxygen children *need* to thrive." He writes, "If you love the poor, providing resources to support marriage has to be a top priority, otherwise you're likely just helping people remain comfortably poor." Once again one of God's ideas—marriage—is the best idea.

Last month, NBA legend LeBron James tweeted, "It's a weird feeling to feel so alone sometimes!" He received over 4,000 replies from people expressing sympathy, disbelief, and from some, criticism. It can be difficult to understand how rich, famous celebrities, like LeBron, could be lonely. Doesn't he have it all? Four NBA championships, two Olympic gold medals, a $23 million LA mansion, marriage to his high school sweetheart, three kids, deep investment in his hometown of Akron, Ohio, ... and still, he feels lonely, even when 138,000 people liked his tweet saying so. The problem with having it all is defining "it all." Define it wrong, and you could get everything you want before realizing the hole in your heart is actually God-shaped. Fame, talent, wealth, stuff, activism, charity ... these things only mean something if life itself has meaning. Of course, loneliness has always been part of the human condition after Eden, and I certainly don't know what LeBron is dealing with. I just know more people than ever report being lonely, despite having more things than ever to distract them.

This term of the U.S. Supreme Court has been consequential, to say the least. In addition to the landmark decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the court has now issued a second ruling that protects religious freedom. The first, issued about a week ago, protects religious institutions from being singled out and discriminated against by state-run entities and programs. The 6-3 decision was consistent with previous rulings in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue that state programs available to non-religious entities cannot be withheld from religious entities simply because they are religious. Instead, the state bears the burden of proof to demonstrate a compelling state interest in discriminating against religious institutions. It remains to be seen whether state officials have finally gotten the message. This week, the court handed down their decision on Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, or what's become known as the "Coach Kennedy Case." High school football coach Joe Kennedy was fired for praying on the football field after games by school officials who kept (pun intended) "moving the goal posts" about what religious expressions were allowed. Contrary to various news reports, Kennedy never forced student athletes, coaches, or anyone else to join him. After school officials raised concerns, he even agreed to pray silently by himself. However, he was told that if he insisted on closing his eyes in silent prayer, he must do it somewhere out of sight. Coach Kennedy rightly recognized their demands as a violation of his right to free religious expression and took his case to the Supreme Court with the aid of First Liberty Institute. On Monday, the court ruled overwhelmingly for Coach Kennedy, on both free speech and free exercise grounds. As Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion: By its own admission, the District sought to restrict Mr. Kennedy's actions at least in part because of their religious character. Prohibiting a religious practice was thus the District's unquestioned "object." The District explained that it could not allow an on duty employee to engage in religious conduct even though it allowed other on-duty employees to engage in personal secular conduct. This behavior, Gorsuch concluded, was unacceptable. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Often, religious liberty violations are more symptoms of bureaucratic inertia or ignorance, than of animus. The first few letters sent by school officials to Coach Kennedy asking him to stop praying are not rantings of radical atheists. Officials acknowledged Coach Kennedy was "well-intentioned" and never forced students to participate in his religious observances. Still, they asked him to stop out of fear they would be sued for a First Amendment violation. In the end, they failed to understand the First Amendment and violated it themselves. This is what happens when ignorance of the law mixes with stubbornness, or, even worse, animus toward religious conviction. When religion is seen as non-essential, religious freedom is limited to "religious" activities like private prayer, church attendance, and personal piety. At the same time, "secular" is wrongfully thought of as "neutral" or "unbiased." Faith is reduced to a hobby, and a highly idiosyncratic one at that. Spiritually inspired convictions must be kept safely within church, synagogue, and mosque walls, and out of the government and schools. This, however, is not religious liberty. It is merely "freedom of worship," what some of the worst tyrannies and their successors falsely claim to be freedom. Thankfully, the court has seen through this muddled thinking and brought clarity to the freedom all Americans have to speak and exercise their religious convictions. Christians, and those of other faiths, absolutely can stand on a football field and close our eyes in prayer, even if others can see us. Christian educators can cite the Bible as a historical record or a masterclass in philosophy. Christian school kids can host Bible studies after school. Christian workers do have the freedom to not take part in the latest ideological fad that business leaders have latched onto. I am grateful for our friends at First Liberty, ADF, and elsewhere that defend conscience rights, and for organizations like Gateways to Better Education who help Christian educators know what those rights, in fact, are. I am grateful that the court has stated, again, that being religious is not a crime, and that the state is required to respect the religious freedom of individuals and institutions. A final lesson for Christians is that we must not become like those who seek to silence us. If the truth is o

Disney's newest Pixar film, Lightyear, isn't doing great at the box office. While critics puzzle over why, an obvious reason is parents are tiring of the constant indoctrination in sexual matters. They feel betrayed by the once trusted Toy Story franchise. All that may come as a surprise to Chris Evans, the new voice of Buzz, who recently said concerned parents are "idiots" who will soon "die off like the dinosaurs." Not only, as Hans Fiene noted, is it strange for 41-year-old man with no children to predict the extinction of the fertile, it's strange to leave children asking whether girls can marry girls, and how the couple had the baby who just magically appears in the film. It's one thing to promote the idea that dads and moms are interchangeable despite, you know, science, but it's another to accuse anyone tired of being force-fed this whole thing of bigotry. As one reviewer put it, "Perhaps calling critics of a movie 'idiots who are going to die off like the dinosaurs' wasn't the best strategy to get families to watch the latest entry in the Toy Story franchise."

There are certain moments in history, such as the end of the Roman Empire or the dawn of the Enlightenment, when it becomes obvious just how much the cultural ground has shifted. In such moments, cultural norms that once fostered social cohesion and defined the good life can change dramatically. Shared ways of thinking, such as the definitions of words, can no longer be taken for granted. It's precisely at these historical hinge points that Christians must "re-catechize" themselves. This means recommitting to what is true and good, and regrounding who we are and how we live in the unchanging, overarching story of redemption outlined in Scripture. We are living in one of these historical hinge points. And, if we take seriously what Paul told the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens, it is not by accident. God intentionally put us in this time and this place. Or, to quote something Tim Tebow said at the "Preparing for a Post-Roe World" event at the recent Wilberforce Weekend, "Anyone who has been rescued is now on the rescue team." God has called the Colson Center to help Christians navigate this consequential cultural moment, to become more deeply grounded in the True Story of reality, and to embrace their calling to this time and this place. In fact, every resource the Colson Center offers is designed to provide (a) a Christian worldview analysis on culture (that's Breakpoint, The Point, and the What Would You Say? video series), (b) a deeper dive into Christian worldview, one that counters the dominant cultural narratives (that's the Upstream and Strong Women podcasts, short courses, and Wilberforce Weekend), or (c) in-depth formation in Christian wisdom and leadership (that's the Colson Fellows program and the Colson Educators collective). Our founder, Chuck Colson, realized that American culture was changing dramatically—he could see it coming—and that the Church needed to prepare for what lay ahead. We've embraced that call fully, and as our podcasts, conferences, training, and events continue to grow, we sense that more and more Christians are also sensing that they need to go deeper in their understanding of truth. This year's Wilberforce Weekend event was the largest yet and featured the commissioning of the largest class of Colson Fellows yet. We anticipate over 1,000 Colson Fellows in next year's class, studying in nearly 60 regional cohorts and over 40 church affiliates. That's amazing. The Colson Educators collective is an investment into the training and formation of thousands of Christian educators, at a time—right now—where it is crucial for Christian education. And this year, by God's grace, the Colson Center will launch a new, online education in public theology that every Christian can access. We believe that every Christian can live like one in this time and this place. And that's exactly what every Christian is called to do. We didn't choose to be in this cultural moment, or to face the challenges it presents. Our time and our place in history are chosen by God. Our moment in history is not an accidental context in which we try to follow Jesus: It's an essential aspect of the calling to follow Jesus. He invites us into His life and to join in the advance of His kingdom and His story right now. So, if Breakpoint or any of the Colson Center ministries have been helpful to you, as a parent, grandparent, citizen, employee, leader, or neighbor, please prayerfully consider partnering with us with a fiscal-year-end gift. Any gift given by Thursday, June 30, 2022, will help us plan to more effectively obey the call God has for the Colson Center in the year ahead. Imagine if more Christians could live with the clarity, confidence, and courage that only a Christian worldview offers. That's what this is all about. To give a gift, please go to ColsonCenter.org/June.

The U.S. Department of Education is changing the rules again, and, again, forcing teachers into situations they may not be prepared for. On June 23, the feds announced that, going forward, gender identity would be included in protected classes under Title IX. Between the efforts of federal officials implementing the latest executive orders and the activism of LGBTQ advocacy groups, school administrators struggle to keep up. Too often they end up caving to these outsiders by crafting new rules of dubious legality. Even though some of these bureaucratic diktats have been successfully challenged in court, those most affected, like teachers and students, don't always know their rights when faced with this top-down pressure. If you find yourself in that position, here are two groups you might want to contact. First, there's our longtime partner organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, who will protect teachers of conscience. Second, there's the Colson Center's education initiative that trains teachers to know where and how to stand on these very important issues.

After nearly 50 years of waiting, working, praying, and weeping, a moment longed for by millions around the nation and around the world has arrived. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned, not only the heinous 1973 Supreme Court decision known as Roe v. Wade, but also the equally flawed decision from 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that these earlier cases, the foundation of so-called abortion rights for a half-century, were without legal merit. Therefore, the final ruling was as follows: "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." To be clear, this ruling doesn't end abortion in America, nor does it legally ban abortion. It means that state-level restrictions on abortion are not immediately invalidated by Supreme Court decisions that even honest pro-abortion legal theorists have recognized as poorly decided. It means that the work to see abortion swept into the same dustbin as other historic evils can now proceed legally unencumbered as it has long been. The next milestones are that abortion is made illegal in as many places as possible and, eventually, as unthinkable as slavery is. Already, state officials have begun working to outlaw or dramatically restrict abortion in their states. Ohio's attorney general has moved to revive its "heartbeat bill," abortion will be illegal in Tennessee within a month, and Missouri has effectively ended the vile practice already. Much has begun, with many areas already prepared to enact similar pro-life laws, and much more remains to be done. The Dobbs ruling is not a surprise. The final draft of the majority opinion was virtually unchanged from an earlier draft leaked back in May. Not only did Justice Alito, who authored the opinion, conclude that a Mississippi abortion restriction could stand, but also that Roe and Casey were promulgated without any constitutional or historical precedent, that the so-called viability argument was inadequate, and that decisions about regulating abortion should return to voters and their elected officials. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan co-authored a dissent, which (I suspect) will be quoted far more often than the majority opinion by most media outlets, especially this line: "With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent," wrote the justices. The main difference between the leaked draft of the opinion and the final version is must-read material for everyone. In four pages, beginning on page 35 of his opinion, Justice Alito absolutely dismantles the dissent. "The dissent," writes Alito, "does not identify any pre-Roe authority that supports such a right—no state constitutional provision or statute, no federal or state judicial precedent, not even a scholarly treatise." Or again, Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State's interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. Of course, many are outraged by this decision. Women's March President Rachel Carmona already declared a "summer of rage." In recent weeks, there have been acts of arson and vandalism, threats of violence against pro-life leaders and conservative justices, all with promise of more to come. In mid-June, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York and Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore released a statement asking "our elected officials to take a strong stand against this violence, and our law enforcement authorities to increase their vigilance in protecting those who are in increased danger." According to Lila Rose of Live Action, the Department of Homeland Security has warned churches and other pro-life organizations to be prepared for "extreme violence" coming from pro-abortion agitators. Today, it is right to celebrate a long-awaited and hard-earned victory in the fight to protect pre-born lives, with thanks to God. We thank God for this cultural grace. We thank Him for the Roman Catholics who called out this evil when many Protestants took refuge in moral ambiguity, and for courageous Protestants like Francis Schaeffer who called evangelicals out of their moral slumber on abortion. We thank God for all who spoke for life, signed petitions, attended rallies, crafted legislation, were spat upon and yelled at by those for whom Roe was a sacrament, not of life but of death. We thank God for the many pe

While Maria's out for the day, John and Shane swivel to discuss the breaking news of the reversal of Roe v. Wade after the Supreme Court announced the Dobbs decision. Reading through the ruling in real time, John points out that Roe was never constitutional. Because Shane just had an opportunity to interview Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis on their new book Tearing Us Apart, he talks about how abortion harms not only preborn children but entire cultural systems. As John and Shane close, they reflect on the disembodiment of not only abortion but also of the message conveyed about a married lesbian couple in Disney's new Pixar film: Lightyear. And yet, recent research has once again shown that fathers are irreplaceable.

Given the amount of attention the issue gets, it's easy to yield to a so-called "inevitability thesis" when it comes to transgender ideology, that it's just a matter of time before everyone is on board. A recent story aired for pride month highlighted the story of two parents who chose to raise their biologically female daughter as a transgender boy. "Before Ryland could even speak," the anchor narrates, "he managed to tell his parents that he is a boy." But, the piece continues, "unlike some trans kids, when Ryland came out at the age of five a few years later, he had the full support of his parents." This story was carried by Fox News, the so-called "conservative" news outlet. Saying, with a straight face, that a child as young as five could somehow "come out" to her parents before she "can even speak," tells us next to nothing about the child. It does, however, speak volumes about the parents, as well as the sad state of a culture that does not allow a story like that to be scrutinized. We're never told, for example, how Ryland somehow "knew" she was a boy as a baby. Now that Ryland's 14, we are not told the plan for puberty, or beyond. Will chemicals be administered to block puberty? Will destructive and irreversible surgeries enable her family to maintain the charade? Fox's segment is the same paper-thin propaganda we've come to expect from other outlets, promoting a dangerous and unprecedented idea while inferring that anyone not on board simply doesn't have enough love in their hearts. The reality, of course, is different. Across the country, thousands of young people are being permanently marked by physical and psychological damage. In fact, some are now expressing deep regret, and their stories are coming to light. Journalist Laura Dodsworth recently published a piece at the U.K.'s The Critic titled "The False Euphoria of Dysphoria." It's worth quoting at length: I photographed and interviewed women [ who] thought they were transgender, had "top surgery", then went on to change their mind and detransition. But although they reverted their names, pronouns and passports, flesh cannot be returned after a double mastectomy. The effects of testosterone cannot be undone, nor the removal of the uterus and ovaries, which some of these detransitioners also had, leaving them sterile, on hormone replacement therapy for life, and traumatized. Dodsworth describes how one young woman, Lucy, who, struggling with anorexia and body dysmorphia, was quickly prescribed gender reassignment surgery as treatment: "At the age of just 23, she could not comprehend how doctors could remove her breasts, uterus and ovaries. 'I feel mutilated,' she said." Another young woman, Susanna, described how her dysphoria grew from the scars of unaddressed sexual abuse: "For me, transition was a kind of self-harm. I was trying to destroy the person I was." Still another young woman, Sinead, wishes she could have received real help instead of a quick fix: I've tried to talk about background issues with therapists. … Actually, I think my gender issues came out of mental health, not the other way around. … For the rest of my life I will always be bewildered that this was allowed to happen. I was dealing with unaddressed trauma from sexual abuse. I needed therapy and help, not a bilateral mastectomy. The conclusion, according to Dodsworth, is simple. Listen to the stories of those who have detransitioned. Women's sports, prisons, even the basic question of what a woman is, have become a uniquely modern battlefield. Detransitioners bear the literal scars of this battle. ... The problem is that young people are affirmed and groomed before the first doctor's appointment by euphoric and unbalanced content on social media. One trans man's pure joy may be another woman's pure regret. The stories Dodsworth tells are just some of the stories now emerging from young people dealing with incredible regret. Figures like Helena Kerschner or Scott Newgent, and hundreds of others on blogs, Twitter threads, and Reddit posts are telling the sobering truth about what trans ideology cost them. What this means for Christians is that we must not buy into any "inevitability thesis" when it comes to trans ideology. We aren't on the wrong side of history, or of our religious beliefs, or of love. The number of detransition stories coming out of the U.K. are a good example that, if anything, America is out of step with much of the rest of the world, who are currently applying the brakes to "gender transitioning" therapies for minors. Also, Christians must give up, once and for all, a foolish and dangerous position of neutrality on this issue. Most damning of all is the claim that to not oppose the destructive gender ideologies of our culture is somehow "the loving thing to do." Too many stories of regret and permanent damage have already emerged. More are told every day. We can never again say that we didn't know. Creating space for these stories to be shared is a po

"Perhaps it's the clarity that comes from enduring a difficult period, but I've noticed, in myself and others, a diminishing tolerance for uncomfortable or unfulfilling social interactions," Melissa Kirsch recently wrote in The New York Times. Reflecting on the impacts of the pandemic, Kirsch repeated what has become cultural orthodoxy: If certain relationships are a drag on your health, time, happiness, or resources, ditch them. Of course, Scripture says that "bad company corrupts good morals." But it also says to "bear one another's burdens" and to not only "love our neighbor" but also our enemies. In other words, friendships are so fragile today because our modern notions of friendship get it almost exactly backwards. Selfish instead of self-giving, the character ingredients a friendship needs in order to survive are incredibly rare: humility, patience with the faults of others, a willingness to laugh at ourselves. G.K. Chesterton put it this way: "Sociability, like all good things, is full of discomforts, dangers, and renunciations." Real friendship just isn't for the self-interested. That's why it's rare. That's also why it's worth it.

This month, Colorado became the first state to officially ban anonymous sperm and egg donation. The law also gives those conceived through anonymous donation the right to seek out their biological parents at 18. This is a win for reproductive ethics and for children. As Katy Faust at Them Before Us puts it, every child has the right to the love of their biological mom and dad, and that relationship matters throughout development. On average, kids raised by their married biological parents do better on every economic, social, and emotional metric. And many children of our technologies struggle with identity, too. Left with the anguish of a missing or ambiguous parent, they wonder, Who am I? Where do I come from? Was I wanted? In sperm donation, especially anonymous sperm donation, this lack of knowledge is by design. It's a feature of sperm donation, not a glitch, treating children as products ordered by adults, sometimes even with specifications. The children's wellbeing is, at best, secondary. Colorado has long been a disaster on reproductive ethics, but this was the right call. We can hope other states will follow suit.

To repeat something said on Breakpoint last month, kids deserve better books than the ones currently being written for them. Too many children's books today are activist books, not really written to kids (and certainly not for them) but to and for grown-ups who want to be the kind of parents who would give this kind of book to their kids. I must admit, however, that I recently received an "activist" kid book that I really like, and so does my son. It's age appropriate, written to kids, and designed to help them think well about something that they, sadly, need to understand. Pro-Life Kids is authored by Bethany Bomberger. She and her husband Ryan, who recently spoke at the 2022 Wilberforce Weekend, are committed pro-lifers, creatives, and Christians. An experienced educator and mom, Bethany understands where kids are developmentally. Pro-Life Kids teaches them what's most true about themselves and others, that every person is made in the image and likeness of God, and introduces them to an issue that's really difficult to talk about—abortion—in an appropriate and engaging way. And, of course, it rhymes! Here's a sample: Sadly, there are those who don't understand … that life has purpose whether planned or unplanned. Throughout history many believed a lie. "You're not a person!" "No way!" they cried. Today many think that lie is still true— that babies in wombs aren't people too. Abortion is when some say it's okay to take that baby's precious life away.* The illustrations are instructive, but also appropriate. For example, the image on the page that introduces abortion is of an ambulance leaving an abortion clinic. And, my favorite page spread shows the value of every human life with a charming set of illustrations sharing the stages of development from baby to elderly, including people of multiple races, male and female, abled and disabled. Near the end is an elderly woman with gray hair and a walker. After the book's main text, there are tips on how kids can stand for life at any age, contained in 15 colorful text blocks. Suggestions include everything from loving their adoptive siblings, to praying outside abortion centers, to marching in D.C., to writing an essay about being pro-life, to showing their friends this book. Bethany Bomberger and her husband Ryan lead the Radiance Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to "create a culture that believes every human life has purpose." They've raised millions for pregnancy resource centers, and they have a special stake in their cause. Ryan was conceived through rape, but his mom was courageous enough to proceed with his pregnancy. He was adopted into a loving, diverse family of 15. Bethany was a single mom who chose to have her baby after seeing an ultrasound of her daughter and encountering Psalm 34:5: "Those who look to him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed." That verse has been the basis of the Radiance Foundation since its founding. Ryan and Bethany have also adopted two children. In fact, one of the most compelling illustrations in Pro-Life Kids is of their own diverse family. Bethany's story will be featured on the Colson Center's Strong Women podcast in August, and Ryan's message from our "Life Redeemed" Wilberforce Weekend can be heard online right now. In it, Ryan calls himself a "factivist," instead of an activist. According to Ryan, many people act without facts, but factivists act with facts. They know that truth is unchanging because God is eternal. His message includes how to identify the lies of secularism "when it comes to human value." Bethany has a baby book version coming out soon and is launching an initiative called Put It on the Shelf, aimed at getting her book on library shelves to counter the "massive influx of books with destructive ideologies." In fact, when you order a copy of Pro-Life Kids, pick up an extra copy to donate to the library. It's a way of living out something the book says quite clearly, "Like many before us who stood for what's right, we'll never give up as we fight for life." To hear Ryan's message, and also messages of others, such as Os Guinness, Nancy Guthrie, and Rachel Gilson, go to WilberforceWeekend.org. And check out Bethany's book Pro-Life Kids. I believe it's another way, paraphrasing Psalm 145:4, for one generation to commend God's works to another. *Excerpt used with permission.

According to a recent WORLD magazine opinion piece, "a massive trove of documentary evidence" was released this month, detailing in concrete terms China's brutality towards minority groups. "The files include photographs of detainees (including children), flamboyant speeches by senior Communist Party officials, police and military reports, and training documents," Eric Patterson, the executive vice president of the Religious Freedom Institute, described. "They expose the precision of China's genocidal policies toward Muslim Uyghurs." Drawn from leaked police reports, this evidence leaves little room for China's leaders to deny their atrocities. Despite official claims, this is not a matter of Chinese national security, and China's leaders are not impartial observers. They are orchestrating the process. A quote attributed to Greek tragedian Aeschylus states that "in war, truth is the first casualty." Whether an actual war with China is in the cards, we are the middles of what Patterson calls "a war of ideas and a war on how international affairs will be conducted." In such war, truth is on the front lines, and it must be told.

Back in 2017, with a 7-2 majority vote, the Supreme Court ruled that denying a church "an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status" amounts to violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. In that case, known as Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, a Missouri church that operated a licensed pre-school and day-care facility applied for funding from a state program that offered "funds for qualifying organizations to purchase recycled tires to resurface playgrounds." Though Trinity Lutheran met all of the qualifications of the program, the state of Missouri informed them that a grant would violate a provision in the state constitution that "no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion." That provision was one of 36 so-called "Blaine Amendments" in state constitutions, amendments originally aimed at Catholic schools and born of the now-incredible belief that public schools were a principal instrument in safeguarding America's Protestant Christian character. Trinity Lutheran sued the state, claiming that because of the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment, a government benefit available to some organizations cannot be withheld from others solely because of religion. Remember, the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Trinity Lutheran argued the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part. The state emphasized the "establishment of religion" part. In his majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts came down squarely on the side of Trinity Lutheran, chiding Missouri for forcing the church to choose between whether to "participate in an otherwise available benefit program or remain a religious institution." The right to be a church, he said, should not come "at the cost of automatic and absolute exclusion from the benefits of a public program for which the Center is otherwise fully qualified." The Missouri law could only be justified if it served some compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive manner, a standard the state of Missouri failed to meet. So, Justice Roberts concluded, "the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand." Then, in 2020, the Chief Justice authored another similarly blunt and straightforward opinion in Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue. In that case, decided by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that a state tax credit, in which Montana awarded a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to individuals who donated to organizations that provide scholarships for private school students, could not "[discriminate] against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them." After creating the program, the Montana Department of Revenue had ruled that such a tax credit, if used to fund to religious private schools, would violate that state's version of the "Blaine Amendment." Kendra Espinoza, a single mom who hoped to send her kids to a Christian school, challenged the Department of Revenue ruling in court. In late 2018, the Montana Supreme Court acknowledged that the Department's ruling ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. Instead of overturning the ruling, however, it invalidated the entire program. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts referenced his earlier Trinity Lutheran opinion, stating that Montana lacked a "compelling government interest" in discriminating against religious schools and that religion is not a secondary part of the First Amendment. Roberts continued, the attempt to invalidate the whole program did not change Montana's "error of federal law." Because of the Trinity Lutheran decision, the Montana Court knew the Department's ruling was unconstitutional. However, instead of applying the decision as it should have, it invalidated the whole program "to make absolutely sure that religious schools received no aid." That action in itself violated the Free Exercise Clause, said Roberts: "A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious." In summary, the Court has been more than clear on the rights of religious institutions. That, however, did not stop the state of Maine from continuing to discriminate against religious schools in their state funding program. Once again, the Court in an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said "no." Under a Maine program that provides tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts without a secondary school, parents "designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend, and the school district transmits payments." That includes private schools, as long as they are acc

As University of Tennessee professor James Tucker writes, "The deterioration of reading achievement in the United States has been noted for decades, and the many attempts to correct this decay have been unsuccessful." He then quotes a sobering statistic: "At least "44 million adults [in the United States] are now unable to read a simple story to their children." The question is, why? Obvious factors include poverty, technology and education, but so are our ideas about what literacy is for. We've largely rejected the great books of the past, preferring subjective and personal experiences to universal truths. So why study? Also, today's emphasis on race, politics, and sexuality in education has transformed literacy from a gift, into more of a weapon. Simply put, literacy cannot be ideologically neutral. It's not just about that we read or even what we read. It's also about why. Consider William Tyndale who rightly sensed all people should be able to read Scripture. He believed that "the boy that drives the plow" could be more knowledgeable of Scripture than the Latin-speaking elite. Words are powerful. And that's why literacy matters.

A once-popular song by the band Switchfoot declared, "We were meant to live for so much more but we lost ourselves." In the closing line of his remake of the song "Hurt" (which, by the way, was way better than the original version), Johnny Cash lamented that the one thing he'd do differently, if he could live life over, was "keep himself—I would find a way." Most people, no matter their worldview, resonate with this kind of thinking about life. It points to something the Bible claims about how God made us, that we all have some innate knowledge of God. We think about life in ultimate categories and in terms of moral expectations, and we seek purpose. The problem, of course, is that because we are marred by sin, so is our pursuit of the truth about who we are and what life is all about. In Christ, our relationships are reconciled, not only with God but also with ourselves and, of course, others too. The freedom, joy, and beauty that result when relationships are re-ordered in Christ is something we are to proclaim to the wider world. Often, however, we struggle to communicate the truth about Christ and life across worldview and cultural lines. In fact, the further adrift a culture is from reality, the more that reality sounds like make-believe. Up seems like down, and down seems like up. It is easy to get the impression that all of our efforts to present truth to others goes nowhere. In his recent book, Mark Mittelberg tackles the challenge and our calling to communicate faith in this cultural moment. Contagious Faith teaches believers to communicate to a world looking for better answers to life's ultimate questions. According to Mittelberg, a big obstacle Christians must overcome is to first actually believe that our faith is worth sharing: I'm reminded of times in my life when I caught something that I couldn't resist and didn't really want to. Contagious isn't always a bad thing. … It describes something irresistible... What if instead of quietly clinging to our relationship with Christ and succumbing to the idea that faith should be private, we realized that faith is for sharing? That Jesus came not just for me and you, but to be the Savior of the world? While it's easy to feel intimidated by the thought of sharing Jesus with others, Mark's approach emphasizes the different gifts and skills present within the body of Christ. He describes five "contagious faith styles" we can learn to practice. Those with the Friendship-Building Style are more like Matthew, the former tax collector-turned-disciple, who held a party in his house to introduce Jesus to his former co-workers. Friends are more likely to listen to friends. Or perhaps you're more of the Selfless-Serving Style like Tabitha, who is described in Acts 9. She was a kind of first-century Mother Teresa, used by God to point people to Him. The selfless-serving approach is particularly powerful in reaching those who are sometimes jaded toward God and the Church. Most of us should be able to employ the Story-Sharing Style, to share our experience with Christ and point others to Him. Think of the blind man described in John 9, who simply talked about his own life. "Though I was blind, now I see," he said. Mittelberg's own approach is what he calls the Reason-Giving Style. Paul demonstrates this, as described in Acts 17, when he describes God to a bunch of philosophers in Athens. Though we hear that people are no longer interested in reasons for the Christian faith, they are—not just why Christianity is true but why it matters, and why the Gospel is good. They want to know not only what Christians believe, but how Christianity makes sense of the world. A final approach is the Truth-Telling Style. We're all called to share the truth with others, but some have a God-given strength in doing that. Think of Peter, as described in Acts 2, speaking to the crowd about who Jesus is and how He fulfills Old Testament promises. The Gospel is a message. The old adage, often attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words," is kind of silly. As Ed Stetzer often says, that's kind of like saying "feed the hungry at all times and when necessary use food." Mark Mittelberg's book is a great tool for learning and planning to share the message of Christ with the world. The message is one that people need, and the mission field is right out the front door. Let's be the kind of Christians with Contagious Faith.

Babies are people, not things. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet with the Point. In a recent interview with Today, an actress revealed she had paid a surrogate to carry twin boys for her because to be pregnant herself would have jeopardized her career. Often, arguments for surrogacy paint pictures of childless couples yearning to be parents. Even that sad situation doesn't justify taking a baby from the body that bore him. But the real stories of surrogacy often look more like this one: the wealthy paying underprivileged women to bear their babies so as to not interfere with what they want. At least this actress was honest: She paid a surrogate because she was "terrified of putting my life on hold for two-plus years." Even aside from surrogacy's inherent exploitation of women and babies, this kind of story raises an important question, "What exactly does our culture think parenting is? Parenting involves laying down our lives for our children—for a whole lot of years. Children are full human beings, with their own inherent rights and dignity, including the right to their mom and dad.

Matt Walsh's new documentary, What is A Woman? is built on a very simple premise: Ask the academics, pediatricians, and politicians who promote trans ideology to define their terms.

John and Maria discuss the 50th anniversary of the break-in at Watergate. Although Watergate marks the decline of American trust in political institutions— something we're seeing in the January 6 hearings, John points out that Watergate's best legacy was the redemption of Chuck Colson. After Maria shares an inspirational story on Mary Slessor, a missionary in Nigeria, they continue their conversation from last week on why uncarefully parsing first-order and second-order doctrines can be risky. They end by talking about our God-shaped hole for meaning to the point that even an elephant recently had to be declared not a person.

Earlier this month, Women's March president Rachel Carmona declared that "For the women of this country, this will be a summer of rage. We will be ungovernable … until the right to an abortion is codified into law." Those aren't empty words. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade draft opinion was leaked, at least five crisis pregnancy resource centers were vandalized across the country. On May 8, a Molotov cocktail was thrown through a Wisconsin pro-life group's headquarters, and the words "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either," scrawled on the side of the building. In response, Students for Life of America announced a different strategy: a "Summer of Service." "We will have a renewed and reenergized dedication to serving as sidewalk advocates, volunteers at crisis pregnancy centers, fundraisers for pro-life financial help efforts, babysitters for childcare centers that serve mothers in need, and more," the group writes. To learn more and to get involved, check out the Students for Life's website. Apparently, this summer will matter. I'm thankful for a pro-life organization committed to overcoming evil with good, and rage with service.

Fifty years ago today, on June 17, 1972, operatives from President Nixon's re-election campaign broke into Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Were it not for a night guard who noticed that a garage door was taped open not once but twice, the most notorious political scandal in American history may not have been. But he did notice. Before it was over, an American president was forced to resign, and the standard was set by which all other scandals would henceforth be compared. In "honor" of this dark anniversary, Starz TV has produced a miniseries recounting the events. There are many reasons I cannot recommend Gaslit, despite the fact that it has a first-rate cast, including Julia Roberts and Sean Penn and Martha and John Mitchell, and the unexpected choice of comedian Patton Oswalt as Chuck Colson. I must say Oswalt pulls off the look, especially the hair and glasses famously. What he doesn't pull off is the voice or the order of events, and Chuck's remarkable conversion is left completely left out. Because of Watergate, the suffix -gate is now added to every government scandal, but that's still the least of its legacies. The colorful cast of characters—the Mitchells, John Dean, G. Gordon Liddy (who is portrayed as an absolute crazy man in the Gaslit series), and others—were part of a story that marked the beginning of what is now a long history of growing institutional distrust in America. The timing and progression of the January 6 hearings are a case in point. Even so, Watergate's most important and enduring legacy, at least according to God's economy, was one of redemption, not corruption. As Emily Colson, Chuck's daughter and Colson Center board member, who experienced Watergate as a teenager forced to watch her father maligned, mocked, and sent to prison, recently wrote to me about the anniversary of Watergate: "People have been asking if this is difficult for me. But it isn't. The events 50 years ago feel more like a beginning than an end. It was the turning point that brought my dad to his knees. And in that, God has brought so much good." Chuck Colson certainly earned his early reputation as Nixon's "hatchet man," a tough, ruthless, and loyal operative. Even if you agreed with his politics, he wasn't exactly known as a nice guy. Everything, however—and I mean everything—changed in the wake of Watergate. As his career and reputation crashed around him, Colson came to his darkest hour. In August of 1973, friend and former client Tom Phillips led him to Christ. Though still today, some snidely suggest that Chuck's conversion was a ploy to get out of prison, he gave his life to Christ even before he was considered a suspect in the Watergate investigation. And, of course, the conversion stuck throughout and after prison, and for decades of his life and ministry beyond. The year after his release from prison, Chuck went back, and he kept going back, over and over and over, through the work of the ministry he founded to bring the Gospel to prisoners and their families. Today, Prison Fellowship operates in every state and many other nations besides, striving to rehabilitate the incarcerated, support their families, and bring about prison reform. Later, Chuck would turn his attention, focusing on the calling of the Church to engage and restore culture,by embracing the fullness of a Christian worldview and courageously stand for truth. He founded Breakpoint, this commentary, to help Christians make sense of cultural events, and a program called Centurions—which has been renamed Colson Fellows—in order to equip Christians to go into their communities, standing for Christ, and bring about restoration. Millions have been blessed in the wake of Chuck's conversion. His story is like that of C.S. Lewis, Harriett Tubman, and so many others. It's a story of what God can actually do through a "Life Redeemed," a life fully and wholly redeemed. In fact, here's how Chuck described it, in his own words: "The truth that is uppermost in my mind today is that God isn't finished. As long as we're alive, He's at work in our lives. We can live lives of obedience in any field because God providentially arranges the circumstances of our lives to achieve His objectives. And that leads to the greatest joy I've found in life. As I look back on my life, it's not having been to Buckingham Palace to receive the Templeton Prize, or getting honorary degrees, or writing books. The greatest joy is to see how God has used my life to touch the lives of others, people hurting and in need. It's been a long time since the dark days of Watergate. I'm still astounded that God would take someone who was infamous in the Watergate scandal, soon to be a convicted felon, and take him into His family and then order his steps in the way He has with me." Fifty years after Watergate, headlines are still telling of government corruption and political abuse. Among the lessons we can learn from Watergate is that God is never stymied: He's

Recently, Pizza Hut, as part of their "Book It!" reading program, highlighted books that promote LGBTQ ideology to children. For example, Big Wig is a book about cross- dressing aimed explicitly at a Pre-K through 3rd-grade audience. The "Book It!" website describes the book as a "wonderful read-aloud (that) celebrates the universal childhood experience of dressing up…. acknowledging that sometimes dressing differently from what might be expected is how we become our truest and best selves." There was a time when businesses found it wiser to remain largely worldview neutral. Now, given the pressure of outside watchdog groups, the tyranny of social media, and what may be called the "true believers" that dominate so many HR departments, Companies, businesses advance ideas about good and evil, the nature of human beings, and the right way to organize society. The rise in aggressive LGBTQ propaganda through business has been a key to the movement's dominance of culture. Pushing back will require two things. First, Christians called to corporate America who reject a privatized faith. Second, Christian consumers willing to connect their convictions with their wallets.

For much of history, people have marked deaths and marriages with religious ceremonies and sacraments. In a time of rapidly declining religiosity, some are now looking to alternative spiritual authorities to give meaning to their most important moments. Spiritual authorities like, say, Mickey Mouse. Recently, a Reddit post by a newlywed couple went viral after they asked whether it was impolite to spend their entire catering budget on an appearance by Mickey and Minnie Mouse. "My fiancée and I are huge Disney fans," wrote the 28-year-old bride, "…we travel to Disney World as much as we can throughout the year. Disney is such an important part not only to us, but also our marriage." The bride and groom chose to pay for a 30-minute appearance from performers dressed as the iconic characters rather than buy food for their wedding guests. Not surprisingly, some in attendance took umbrage, as did people online who read the post, calling the couple childish and selfish. A professor of religious studies at Lehigh University, however, defended the couple and urged her Twitter followers to "stop pathologizing Disney adults." She explained: "Many of the Disney fans I have observed in person and online find immense meaning in the parks. People don't just marry at Disney. They mourn lost relatives at Disney. They go to Disney to celebrate surviving cancer. They go there for one last trip before they die. Religion is a way of making meaning in the world through stories and rituals. It's about a network of relationships with the human and non-human…. It's about making homes and confronting suffering…. All of this happens at Disney." The professor is correct that some people view Disney and its theme parks in religious terms. Not long ago, reports emerged that Disney was secretly working to stop guests from scattering the ashes of their deceased loved ones at their parks. Apparently, urns of human remains are so often emptied, employees have code words to warn of that kind of cleanup. The fact that some now look to cartoon characters and amusement parks to bless and sanctify their lives signals how spiritually impoverished and hungry their lives have become. Of course, Disney is just one of many religious alternatives on offer in a culture like ours. We could easily question the amount of money spent on sports or travel or distractions of various kinds. People who look to the state or the screen or to sex for meaning and purpose are just as lost as those who look to Disney for it. There's also the matter of how religion is understood in a secular society. If, as the professor wrote, "Religion is a way of making meaning in the world through stories and rituals," then Disney fits the description. But this assumes that religious faith is subjective, based in fiction—not reality, a product of the imagination—not reason. If religion is merely a way of making meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe, then Mickey Mouse will work as well as Moses. This is how secularists define religion and, tragically, how some participants of traditional religions live out faith. However, a social club gathered around nice fables no one is really convinced of is a hobby, not a faith. Christians insist that worship is directed to the real God who stepped into real history, died on a real cross, and really left behind an empty tomb. As the Apostle Peter put it, "We did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." Faith isn't a way of inventing meaning where there is none. Nor is it built on any other patronizing definition that could include Cinderella as easily as Christ. The Gospel isn't a "cleverly devised story." It is the truth of all of reality, the truth that gives meaning to our lives, our marriages, and, yes, our deaths. The fact that people in an increasingly irreligious culture look to the Magic Kingdom as a replacement for God only reinforces the kind of creatures we really are: "incurably religious" ones, as John Calvin put it. We seek because we were made that way by the One we truly seek. And, what we seek is real, not make-believe. Building lives around cartoons is disturbing and sad. But the problem isn't people who love fantasy too much. It's people who have nothing better to love, and a culture that tells them they may just as well wish upon a star as call upon the Lord.

It's an interesting time for travel. The price of flights notwithstanding, many are opting for what social media has dubbed "revenge travel": the chance to get out and make up for time lost during the pandemic. Which brings up the question: What is travel good for? A popular answer is that travel is necessary to experience la dolce vita, or "the sweet life." Writing to the Atlantic, one reader described his year overseas: "I went to Italy burned out from American corporate pressures and returned with better boundaries for work/life and an intentionally slower pace of doing things." But travel is no cure for all that ails us. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously called travel "a fool's paradise," the mistaken belief that internal restlessness can be escaped by a mere change of scenery. "Our first journeys," he wrote, "discover to us the indifference of places." Travel is a way to connect with people and expand our knowledge of the world. But, as the writer of Ecclesiastes warns, living for life's next high cannot eliminate life's unsettling questions, nor does can it take us to the deeper Source of life's passing joys.

Earlier this year, a very secular publication came to an unexpected conclusion. Vox ran a series of articles under the title "America's Struggle for Forgiveness,." In it, they wrote, "Grace might be the holiest, most precious concept of all in this conversation about right and wrong, penance and reform—but it's the one that almost never gets discussed." Even in the most morally exhausted cultural moments, there are signs of life. Made in God's image, with eternity in our hearts, we're desperate for answers to our deepest questions and for purpose to help us make sense of our lives. We search elsewhere but, ultimately, only the Gospel can offer what we need. At the same time, at least when it comes to forgiveness, Christians are struggling as well. In any context, because it always involves fallen human beings, forgiveness isn't easy. In this cultural moment, so deeply divided at such fundamental levels and with so much at stake in the issues, it can seem impossible. How can we reconcile the idea of forgiveness in a world overrun by evil? How can we be examples of forgiveness, both forgiving and seeking forgiveness, to a world that so desperately needs to see it? First, we need to be clear on what forgiveness is and isn't. The way Jesus' command to "love your enemies" is often used in order to silence Christians who hold unpopular views completely misses the point. Too often, we get the impression that we need to apologize not merely for failing to live out Christian ethics, but for holding Christian ethics, as if Christian witness is compromised by Christian morality. Second, Christians must embrace the idea of forgiveness. There's a fear in many corners of the church, particular those engaged in standing for righteousness in this cultural moment, that concepts like "forgiveness," "gentleness," or "compassion" are signs of weakness. Certainly, many Christians have been gutted of courage at the exact moment Christian courage is so badly needed. But asking for or offering forgiveness is not necessarily a sign of weakness. In fact, in a culture devoid of it, Christians have something essential to offer people, families, institutions, and cultures. Plus, we don't have a choice. A gracious posture is not an option for Christian. In Romans 12, Paul instructs Christians to "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them." He also commands us to "Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good." Holding to truth and righteousness and being gracious to others are not mutually exclusive options. Both are required for Christ followers. We must not pretend people are somehow "doing good" when they are not, or that evil ideologies that hurt the innocent are somehow anything less than evil. In Jesus' words, we will be "exclude[d]" and "revile[d]," and have our names "spurn[ed]" as "evil" for His sake, not because we've done anything wrong but because we've followed Him. As Jesus' teaching about church discipline and instructions to the disciples to "shake the dust of unbelieving towns off their feet" suggests, the goal of Christian witness can only be faithfulness. Whether or not are liked is of little importance. Which means, as Steve Cornell with The Gospel Coalition writes, forgiveness is different than "reconciliation." We can and must extend forgiveness, and we ought be agents of reconciliation. However, because reconciliation always involves someone else, it isn't merely up to us. When people actively pursue evil, boundaries are necessary. The real battlefield of forgiveness is not just external behavior. It involves the heart, which God sees with piercing clarity. It may involve asking for forgiveness, even from ideological opponents who are on the wrong side of a given issue. It will mean forgoing vengeance, even while seeking justice and extending love to those extending hate. In God's economy, this is not weakness. It is the a strength rooted in Christ who Himself proclaimed, "Father, forgive them." A wonderful example is Barronelle Stutzman, a co-recipient of this year's Wilberforce Award. For years, she's been the target of the state of Washington, misrepresented in the press, slandered and sued for refusing to custom design flowers for the same-sex wedding. Only last November, after nearly a decade, was her legal case finally settled. Through the whole, exhausting process, Barronelle extended nothing but kindness, even to the person behind her legal nightmare, longtime customer and friend Rob Ingersoll. "I did not turn down Rob," she wrote in 2016. "I turned down an event. And if Rob walked into my store today, I would hug him and I would serve him for another 10 years." That same gracious attitude only became more evident in the years since. Through it all, she steadfast refused to betray her faith while still showing gentle kindness toward those who oppose her. Anyone who knows Barronelle Stuzman would never confuse that posture with weakness. Rather, she's a living, breathin

Quantum theory boggles the mind. As science journalist John Horgan writes, quantum theory is science's most precise, powerful theory of reality. It has predicted countless experiments, spawned countless applications. The trouble is physicists and philosophers disagree over what it means, that is, what it says about how the world works. At the core of the disagreement is what matter consists of at the quantum, or the smallest, level. At that size, matter's properties change when we try to observe it, even—amazingly—because we try to observe it. That's led to over a century of frustrated efforts to understand exactly what the fundamental "stuff" of reality is. It's not that these tiny things aren't real; it's that we can't figure out what they're like. At the same time, quantum theory has proven explanatory power. A theological parallel is the Trinity. We can't comprehend exactly how the Godhead functions, but that doesn't mean it's not real. As C.S. Lewis wrote back in 1952, if Christianity is true, it would be "at least as difficult as modern physics." And, we could add, just as rational.

How Christian must Christians be to still be Christian? For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is Breakpoint. A question every youth pastor should expect to answer at least once in their career is the "how far is too far?" question. Of course, the person asking—usually a guy—wants to know how close to the moral cliff he can get before getting married. It's a common question, albeit fundamentally wrong. The ones asking rarely stay pure for long since purity is better understood as a direction rather than a line. Instead of tip-toeing the edge, a much better approach is to focus on trying to honor God and the young woman as much as possible. This same kind of minimalist thinking affects Christians of all ages, in other areas of life and faith. This is especially true at a time of moral drift, like ours. If someone maintains a bare adherence to Christian form or most of the convictions in the ancient creeds, we hear, what they believe about controversial moral or cultural issues ought not matter (or even, in some cases, how they live). All that matters is that they are "sincere," because, after all, "not all Christians agree" and "Christians have been wrong before" and "we should love everyone," and so forth. An increasing amount of evidence suggests that this kind of superficial allegiance to God and truth does not long keep the one questioning within the fold. Many churches, even entire denominations, that once flirted with the near side of progressivism, long ago dropped nearly every doctrinal and ethical stand of historic Christianity, even while holding to certain external trappings of the faith they now deride in their teachings. Especially during this month, many ornate Gothic buildings that once served as centers of historic Christian worship are not only redecorated with rainbow flags but claimed for another kingdom. Vestments come sleeveless to highlight a pastor's (or pastrix's?) amply tattooed arms and edgy new ways of talking about things. Many in the pulpits and in the pews, it seems, maintain a deep longing to remain connected to God and some semblance of Christianity, but not to the claims of morality and truth that go along with them. More and more, historically Christian institutions are drifting too. In just the last few months, a once-Christian magazine published an article on sex written by a self-described "polyamorous Christian" and another that argued for the "reproductive rights" (abortion) of "women and pregnant people." Many Christian colleges are likewise struggling with their identity and their past convictions, particularly in trying to find the line between loving those who struggle with same-sex attraction and functionally affirming such lifestyles. When Baylor University, a historically Baptist school, offered official status to a campus LGBTQ group, the reason was to "help students gain deeper understanding of their own and others [sic] complex and intersectional identities, including gender and sexuality and faith and spirituality." And then, two weeks ago, Eerdmans Publishing Company, publisher of some of the most important works of Christian theology for over 100 years, tweeted out a list of LGBTQ-affirming books they've published along with, "Wherever you stand or whatever you think you know, #PrideMonth is a time to take a step back, to listen to real stories, and seek to understand." After initially deleting the tweet, they doubled down on their support, insisting in a lengthy tweet thread that Christian ethics couldn't be reduced to "right" and "wrong" opinions. Jake Meador of Mere Orthodoxy rightly described the moral reasoning as "gibberish." The problem in these kinds of situations is not just reaching wrong conclusions about culturally significant issues. It's the approach taken. Throughout church history, Christians have attempted to keep issues of lesser importance from obstructing the overall work of the Church. This has required a sort of prioritization of doctrines and ethical reasoning. So, things like the deity of Christ and the reality of the Trinity are ranked higher than questions about the mode and meaning of baptism, the exact timeline to the Second Coming, or how long hymn lines should be. Often, this principle is summarized by the phrase, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." On the whole, this is a wise philosophy. It allows cooperation among Christians who disagree about certain things but share an allegiance to Christ. The non-negotiable doctrines are epitomized in the creeds of the Church, like the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. For centuries, these statements of faith have been guideposts for the Church, noting the boundaries of Christian truth and warning how far is too far. Even so, what the creeds state, especially about creation, sin, and salvation, further implies things that were once taken for granted. For example, no one claiming the term Christian would have questioned, until yesterday at lea

According to the U.K. Express, the Chinese government is afraid. Afraid of what? Afraid that there could be 300 million Chinese Christians by 2030, which would be a spectacular increase from the 75 to 100 million Christians in China today. Still, for perspective, there were only about 4 million Christians in China when the Communists took over in 1949. That number had barely changed by Mao's death in 1976. But since then, Christianity has grown like the Chinese economy: 7% or 8% a year, despite the fact that even going to church, much less evangelizing, can be difficult if not dangerous. Like the early Church, many Chinese Christians are living lives "that are not only in marked contrast to the lives of their neighbors but better than those practiced in the larger society." This kind of influence one church historian calls "patient ferment." It could transform China just like the early Church transformed the Roman Empire. No wonder the Communist government is scared.

Mary Slessor was born to a Scottish working-class family in 1848. At an early age, Mary joined her parents in the Dundee mills, working half a day while going to school the other half. By age 14, Mary was working 12 hour shifts. Ever an avid reader, she kept a book propped up on her loom so she could read while working. Mary's mother, a devout Presbyterian with an interest in missions, saw that her children were raised in the Faith. When a local mission to the poor opened in Dundee, Mary volunteered to be a teacher. Her sense of humor and sympathy made her popular among her pupils. At age 27, Mary learned of the death of famous missionary, David Livingstone. Inspired to join her church's mission in what is now southern Nigeria, Mary taught and worked in the dispensary. With her devotion to learn the local language, plus by cutting her hair and abandoning the traditional Victorian dress as impractical in the hot climate, Mary quickly set herself apart from the other missionaries. She began eating local foods as a cost-cutting measure. Finding the mission hierarchy frustrating, she welcomed opportunities to go upriver into inland areas. The need for workers in these regions with fewer missionaries was significant, so she asked to be stationed there. However, since male missionaries had been killed in those areas, her request as a single woman was turned down as too dangerous. After a medical furlough for malaria, Mary was stationed in a region where shamans dominated much of life. These men conducted trials in which guilt or innocence was determined by whether or not the accused died after taking poison. Slavery was also rampant among the powerful, and slaves were often sacrificed on their owner's death to be their servants in the afterlife. Women's rights were virtually nonexistent. Despite these challenges, Mary was able to integrate into the community and earn the trust of the local people. As a woman, she was not seen as the threat that male missionaries were. And, her ability to speak Efik and her embrace of local lifestyles in clothing, housing, and food endeared her to the native peoples. It was in Okoyong that Mary began the work for which she is now best known. The locals believed that when twins were born, one of them must be the child of a demon. The mothers were ostracized, and, since there was no way to tell which was cursed, both children would be abandoned to death by starvation or wild animals. Like the earliest Christians who rescued victims of attempted infanticide by exposure, Mary began rescuing twins. She saved hundreds of children and, against the advice of her mission agency, adopted nine as her own. Like the earliest Christians whose example she emulated, the actions of Mary Slessor not only saved lives but played a major role in changing the local culture. Her understanding of the language, history, and customs — plus her standing in the community –enabled her to work as a mediator and give judgments in local tribal courts. When the British attempted to set up a court system in the area, Mary warned them it would be a disaster. So, the British consul appointed Mary as vice-consul in Okoyong, making her the first female magistrate in the British Empire. In this position, Mary continued to mediate disputes, while acting as liaison with the colonial government, continuing to care for children and continuing her work as a missionary. At age 66, Mary finally lost a long fight with malaria. She was given a state funeral, which was attended by many people who travelled from the tribal regions in order to honor her. She was nicknamed the "Queen of Okoyong." Mary Slessor's story is a wonderful part of the larger, ongoing Story of restoration, accomplished by Christ through His people within the time and place they are called. Slessor offers yet another example for Christ-followers that taking the Gospel to pagan cultures will typically involve protecting children. Our calling is no different.

John and Maria discuss the way some Christians are handling PRIDE month. Notably, Maria asks John to explain the background of a known publisher of Christian-based books, Eerdmans, and a list of books they've published to "help" Christians think about PRIDE month. Maria then asks John to comment on a recent article by journalist and commentator Ezra Klein who discussed how climate change is impacting the decisions of some adults on whether to have kids. Maria offers some helpful thoughts for us on how we got to this place and why Klein's thinking and reporting isn't shedding light on the whole story. To close, Maria wants John to explain a new report from Harvard that purports scientists have reversed the aging in mice. An article on the report says that aging is a disease, and John critiques that phrasing and offers some ways the Christian perspective is wholly different, especially as it looks to redeem and restore life in a fallen world. -- Recommendations -- What is a Woman>> -- In Show References -- Segment 1: Eerdmans Publishers Promote "Books for PRIDE Month" "We find ourselves at a time again where we should be willing to listen and seek to understand those in the LGBTQ+ community who are simply fighting to be seen and heard, cared for and loved." https://eerdword.com/pride-month-books/ Eerdman's defending itself after posting on Twitter, removing it, and re-posting it: https://twitter.com/eerdmansbooks/status/1534269600736563200 State Farm drops its partnership with "GenderCool" program to distribute LGBT books to kids in publis schools after uproar "The mission of GenderCool, founded in 2018 in Chicago, is to "replace misinformed opinions with positive experiences meeting transgender and non-binary youth who are thriving," according to its website. The organization, which describes itself as "an inspiring disrupter," has partnered with some of the biggest companies in the world, including Bank of America, Dell, General Mills, NBCUniversal and Nike." WaPo>> {Pizza Hut features "Drag Kids" book for kids as young as kindergarteners} "Pizza Hut is featuring a book about "drag kids" as one of the books promoted by its "Book It!" reading incentive program aimed at children in pre-kindergarten through 6th grade." FoxNews>> Segment 2: Ezra Klein says "Your Kids Are Not Doomed" "Over the past few years, I've been asked one question more than any other. It comes up at speeches, at dinners, in conversation. It's the most popular query when I open my podcast to suggestions, time and again. It comes in two forms. The first: Should I have kids, given the climate crisis they will face? The second: Should I have kids, knowing they will contribute to the climate crisis the world faces?" "We will have caused incalculable damage to ecosystems. We will have worsened droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. We will have bleached coral reefs, acidified the ocean, driven countless animal species to extinction. Millions, maybe tens of millions, of people will die from increased heat, and more will be killed by the indirect consequences of climate change. Far more yet will be forced to flee their homes or live lives of deep poverty or suffering. We will have stolen the full possibility of their flourishing from them." NYT>> Pew Research in 2021 finds that a tiny percentage of childless adults cite "climate concerns" as their reason for not having kids>> Segment 3: Scientists Can Reverse Aging in Mice. The goal is to do the same for humans. " "It's a permanent reset, as far as we can tell, and we think it may be a universal process that could be applied across the body to reset our age," said Sinclair, who has spent the last 20 years studying ways to reverse the ravages of time." "His research shows you can change aging to make lives younger for longer. Now he wants to change the world and make aging a disease," said Whitney Casey, an investor who is partnering with Sinclair to create a do-it-yourself biological age test." CNN>>

Many Christians settle for a reductionistic view of salvation, in which eternity is secured but the rest of life left untouched. The Bible, however, presents a much more holistic vision of redemption. To explore salvation from a broader point of view, this year's Wilberforce Weekend looked at "Life Redeemed." The event was framed around three questions: What are we saved from, what are we saved to, and what are we saved for? Rachel Gilson is the author of a fascinating book entitled Born Again This Way: Coming Out, Coming to Faith, and What Comes Next. She spoke specifically on something the Bible describes that we are saved from: confusion. Here's a portion of Rachel's compelling message. As I started having romantic and sexual relationships with other young women, I thought, "Oh, this is where home is for me." So, I got to Yale, and I was like, "Oh no!" The girl I was dating at the time, well, she left me for this guy that lived in a van. And I was, like, "That is bad news, no matter what." And also, I'm just sad, you know? So teenage breakups—very dramatic. I was basically dumped into the pit of an identity crisis, and never once did, I think, "Oh, I should turn to Jesus" because I didn't believe in Jesus. So, a little while after that, I happened to be in the room of—I could call her a friend; she was more like an acquaintance—a non-practicing Catholic. And I remember standing in her doorway, and she was further into her room getting something, putting it in a bag, whatever. We're going to walk somewhere. And she had a bookshelf next to her doorway, and one of my favorite hobbies is to look at people's bookshelves and judge them, you know? So, I'm checking it out, looking up and down. And there was a copy—there was a book on this shelf. The spine read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and so I thought, "Oh, I really want to read that book," but I was too embarrassed to ask my friend for it. So, I just stole the book because, again, I had no moral code, right? My bag, it's not that big—you can just slip it right in. So, I was sitting in the library soon after that, reading Mere Christianity, and while I was reading it one day, I was just overwhelmed with the realization that God exists. I was trying to explain this to an atheist friend of mine recently. He's, like, "Tell me again." I'm, like, "I don't really want to say." I was sitting there, and it was clear to me suddenly—I don't remember where, what chapter I was in, what page, anything like that, but I was just overwhelmed with the reality of God. And not like a store brand, you know, like Zeus or something, but the God who made me and who made everything and who was perfect. It was like I could sense God's holiness even though I didn't know that vocabulary and the only thing I felt was fear. I'm arrogant. I'm cruel. I'm sexually immoral. I lie. I cheat. I'm reading a stolen book. It's clear all of the chips are in the guilty category, right? I had no confusion at that moment either, but really quickly with that I also understood that part of the reason Jesus had come was to place himself as a barrier between God's wrath and me. And that the only way to be safe was to run towards Him, not away from Him. It was lovely, but it also was really clear to me really soon in my walk with the Lord that my attraction to other women wasn't going anywhere. And it's been 18 years, and my attraction to women still hasn't gone anywhere. So, it was where the confusion actually entered in. I was, like, "How, how am I supposed to thrive in Christ when these attractions aren't gone?" And the Lord kept pushing on me at this time. Like, "Hey, if you're only willing to obey when you both understand and agree, maybe you're actually serving yourself as God and not me." Probably many of you experience other places where you feel confused because there's something the Lord says and it doesn't seem to line up with you intuitively. There's maybe some sin that you love, that you don't know how to—you don't know how to part with. And I would just say again and again, the only place of safety is found in Him and in His Word. And He promises by His Word, by His Spirit, by His people, to lead us out of confusion and to lead us into love and joy and peace and patience, into the obedience of faith that He's calling us to. That was Rachel Gilson, author of a book called Born Again This Way. To hear more of Rachel's message, and other speakers from this year's Wilberforce Weekend event, "Life Redeemed," including Os Guinness, Nancy Guthrie, Jim Daly, Monique Duson, and others, go to www.wilberforceweekend.org.

This summer the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Part of what the justices will have to consider is a legal principle called stare decisis, which means respecting precedent. If the High Court wants to respect Roe, especially its deep ideological and legal flaws, it should take into account why Roe was decided the way it was. Since then, the pro-abortion movement has insisted that abortion is a "women's rights" issue. But in 1973, many Americans, especially elites, believed a now-debunked theory that the world was headed for catastrophe due to over-population. The Supreme Court justices themselves noted in the official majority opinion in Roe v. Wade that this concern, in part, motivated their decision to legalize abortion. In the Dobbs case, the justices should consider that this part of the legal precedent is a debunked and harmful theory, and therefore should see abortion for what it truly is: an unconstitutional evil.

During a prayer gathering on the National Mall a few years ago, Terry Beatley, a commissioned Colson Fellow and president of a pro-life organization called the Hosea Initiative, reminded the crowd of a story Chuck Colson told in a Breakpoint commentary over 25 years ago. The story, of how God changed the heart of one of our nation's most notorious abortionists, is about as dramatic a conversion as Chuck Colson's was. Yet, it came in the wake of one of the greatest defeats pro-lifers had suffered since the Roe v. Wade decision. Here's what Chuck wrote, in a commentary entitled "The Ultimate Victory." "I was [recently] invited to witness a baptism," Chuck said, "in the sacristy chapel of Saint Patrick's cathedral in New York City. About 80 of us sat in a semicircle waiting for John Cardinal O'Connor to arrive. "While waiting, I couldn't help but think back to last fall and the Senate's attempt to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act—an attempt that failed. I remember walking the Senate corridors that day, looking for senators and pleading with them to vote to override the veto. "One of my most dramatic memories," Chuck continued, "happened while I was sitting in the Senate gallery, listening to the debate over whether it should be legal to commit infanticide—to kill babies already three-quarters born. The senators fell silent for a moment, and just as they did, a baby's cry pierced the silence. A poignant reminder to both sides of what was at stake that day. "After the vote I walked down to the Senate reception room and saw the grinning, almost cheering, crowd of abortion supporters. There was Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, surrounded by a crowd of people beaming and congratulating each other. They'd won; they'd scored a tremendous victory for the pro-abortionists. They'd stopped the bill." Chuck then continued: "Scenes of that day kept flashing through my mind as I sat in that dimly lit chapel at Saint Patrick's. Why? Because the candidate for baptism was none other than Bernard Nathanson, one of the abortion industry's greatest leaders, a man who personally presided over some 75,000 abortions, including the abortion of his own child. "I watched as Nathanson walked to the altar. What a moment. Just like the first century—a Jew coming forward in the catacombs to meet Christ. And his sponsor accompanying him to the altar was Joan Andrews. Ironies abound. Joan is one of the pro-life movement's most outspoken warriors, a woman who spent five years in prison for her pro-life activities. "… just above Cardinal O'Connor," Chuck continued, "was a cross. As I reflected on the day when infanticide could not be stopped by the United States Senate, I realized that I was witnessing, this day, the victory. I looked at that cross and realized again that what the Gospel teaches is true: In Christ is the victory. He has overcome the world, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against His Church. "We might have taken a beating in the Senate on partial-birth abortion, but only temporarily. Because there at the altar was a man, who spent three decades in the satanic world of abortion, joyfully accepting forgiveness in Christ. "And there were 80 people huddled in the catacombs of Saint Patrick's Cathedral, celebrating a victory Kate Michelman could do nothing about: the triumph of the Gospel over evil. "This," Chuck concluded, "is the way the abortion war will ultimately be won: through Jesus Christ changing hearts, one by one. No amount of political force, no government, no laws, no army of Planned Parenthood workers, can ever stop that. It is the one thing absolutely invincible. "That simple baptism, held without fanfare in the basement of a great cathedral, is a reminder that a holy Baby, born in a stable 20 centuries ago, defies the wisdom of man. He cannot be defeated."

John and Os Guinness discuss the privitization of faith, if Americans should support revolution or revival in this cultural moment, and what Christians should do with public school. They also answer a host of other questions from the audience at Wilberforce Weekend this year asked by Michael Craven, Vice President of Equipping and Mobilization at the Colson Center.

Kudos to these Tampa Bay Rays. On Saturday night, several players for the Tampa Bay Rays opted out of wearing rainbow logos for "Pride Night." Pitcher Jason Adam represented those players to reporters, saying, while players want all to feel "welcome and loved" at games, We don't want to encourage [an LGBTQ lifestyle] if we believe in Jesus, who's encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior. Just like (Jesus) encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. Adam's clarity and his teammate's bravery despite the furnace of public outrage reminds me of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego facing Nebuchadnezzar's idol. They are following the example of U.S. women's soccer player Jaelene Daniels, formerly Hinkel, who refused to wear a pride jersey in 2017. She also was castigated for her stand. According to Tampa Bay Rays manager Kevin Cash,. instead of causing dissension, the opting out "has created … a lot of conversation and valuing the different perspectives inside the clubhouse but really appreciating the community that we're trying to support here." In other words, opting out creates real diversity and inclusion.

Since the pandemic, American adults are behaving badly. "Bad behavior of all kinds—everything from rudeness and carelessness to physical violence—has increased," Olga Khazan recently wrote at The Atlantic. "Americans are driving more recklessly, crashing their cars and killing pedestrians at higher rates. Early 2021 saw the highest number of 'unruly passenger' incidents ever, according to the FAA." Plenty of viral videos, especially but not exclusively of passengers on airplanes and in airports, affirm Khazan's description. Her question is a good one: Why are people acting so weird? An obvious answer is that the social isolation of the last few years has taken a real toll on our mental health and well-being. Studies do show that prolonged isolation often does lead to anti-social behavior. "When we become untethered," one Harvard sociologist told Khazan, "we tend to prioritize our own private interests over those of others or the public." It's also not a secret that, to deal with the increased stress and isolation, more Americans have turned to destructive coping mechanisms. Per capita, we're drinking more. Drug overdoses, despite a two-year decline pre-pandemic, have spiked by nearly 30% since 2019. Even crime—including break-ins, robberies and homicides—has increased, as the pandemic has eased. In the article, Khazan quoted a University of Missouri criminologist who thinks that we've developed "a generalized sense that the rules simply don't apply." Everything about the pandemic, of course, increased individual and collective anxiety, isolation, and economic uncertainty. However, the coarsening of the American public was already in place. You might call it a "pre-existing condition," made worse by COVID-19. In his book A Free People's Suicide, Os Guinness argues that America has become a "cut-flower" society. Though we still have the trappings of liberty and morality, he argues, we are cut off from its root. Just as with flowers, there's a lag time between when a civilization is cut from its roots and when it dies. Even so, by cutting ourselves off from a shared Judeo-Christian framework, we are starving ourselves. The pandemic didn't cause this, but it has worsened and exposed it. G.K. Chesterton described something similar in The Everlasting Man. Sometimes, he argued, it's the solutions we invent that unmake us, not the crises we are attempting to endure. Pessimism is not in being tired of evil but in being tired of good. Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. It is when for some reason or other the good things in a society no longer work that the society begins to decline; when its food does not feed, when its cures do not cure, when its blessings refuse to bless. The widespread cultural breakdown we see around us cannot by explained by a mere loosening of morals, or the wrong political party being in power, a pandemic, or our response to it. What we are seeing is the catastrophic emptiness when life is built on the wrong foundation. While our distractions keep us busy—Americans streamed a mind-blowing 15 million years' worth of digital content in 2021, according to analytics company Nielsen—but are failing to satisfy. The American dream has been written and re-written and altered completely but remains out of reach. It's not clear what can hold us together anymore. A critical question for Christians is whether there is anything we can do about it. A critical answer to that question is to remember that we aren't the first to find ourselves in a society unmoored from morality and meaning. If public behavior today is "weird," public behavior at the start of the 18th century was downright shocking. In London, it was not unusual to come across bear fighting and heads on pikes. Crime and prostitution were endemic, as was poverty, and churches sat empty. According to a Christianity Today article about that time period, "only five or six members of Parliament even went to church," and those churches often peddled nothing more than state-sponsored religiosity. Yet, unknown to most, God was moving. The revivals led by John and Charles Wesley and their friend George Whitefield proved to be a match in a powder keg, sparking a massive return to Christian faithfulness and care in their own time. That revitalized Church set the table for William Wilberforce's "reformation of manners and morals," a movement for human rights that would change England and the world forever. The secret, according to John Wesley, was realizing what really is at the center of human flourishing. "How a sinner may be justified before God, the Lord and Judge of all, is a question of no common importance to every child of man," John Wesley argued. "It contains the foundations of all our hope, inasmuch as while we are at enmity with God, there can be no true peace, no solid joy, either in time or in eternity." Those words are no less true in our times. When public morality is unhinged, Christians ought not