Breakpoint

Why are pro-abortion activists so committed? Because of lies built upon centuries of bad ideas... If we wondered just how committed some Americans are to abortion, the last couple of weeks have been a helpful demonstration. After a leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court on the Dobbs cased suggested the court might overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion activists erupted. Protests were organized outside the private homes of six Supreme Court justices, vile demonstrations were held on the steps of Catholic churches, and the offices of pro-life organizations in Oregon and Wisconsin were vandalized, threatened, and even set on fire. People are angry, and they're not faking it. Especially for Christians praying for an end to legal abortion in the United States, it should matter to us that people feel this strongly on the other side of the issue. If we want, ultimately, to make abortion not just illegal but unthinkable, we will have to reach the very people who are so dedicated to it that they'd debase themselves and threaten others just to protect it. But we will not be able to challenge the misconceptions they believe and spread if we don't understand what they are. In his 2020 book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Dr. Carl Trueman traced the philosophy behind abortion back several centuries, though these bad ideas date even earlier. When Charles Darwin suggested, in the mid-19th century, that human life resulted from mindless and purposeless processes, he wasn't just making a biological claim. He was making an ontological claim. Human life, if accidental, has no ultimate purpose. Instead, purpose had to be invented. Enter Sigmund Freud, who suggested that what we really live for is sex, even if we don't realize it. After Freud came the philosopher Herbert Marcuse, who agreed that sex is everything. He also believed that power was a global currency. To Marcuse, so-called "sexual morals" or norms aren't based in any objective reality but are merely inventions used by people to exert power. Radical feminist Simone de Beauvoir built on this theory in her famous work The Second Sex. She argued that if sex is a tool of oppression, then women can only truly be free and fully human by making themselves "eunuchs." A free woman must, she wrote, be "freed from nature" and "win control of her body." Abortion is a tool of this fantasy. The patron saint of every single one of these bad ideas lived centuries earlier. Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested that human beings are inherently good in their inner nature but are corrupted by our outer interactions with other people. The solution to that corruption was to look inward. In other words, to be human is primarily a psychological, not a physical, reality. The ideas and lives of these people, long dead, have fundamentally shaped our world. The reason that abortion is so important to its supporters is the same reason it's so abhorrent to Christians. Nothing else reveals more about what we believe it means to be human that what we believe about abortion. To abortion supporters, the prerogative of women to violently hinder the gender-specific ability of their bodies to bear children is central to their humanity. If we believe the biological realities of our bodies oppress or even limit our feelings and desires, we must force our bodies to comply in order to be fully human. Anyone who wants to stop us may as well be killing us. Christians believe that to allow the killing of a vulnerable image bearer is to proclaim, among other things, that our bodies have nothing to do with being human, that God doesn't image himself in our bodies, that God didn't make us for a purpose, and consequently, that He is not good—which means He is not God. Even so, we should also remember that abortion is a real evil. Sociologist Philip Reiff believed cultures without a moral center produce what he called "deathworks," or cultural artifacts that don't build but only to tear down. Abortion is a deathwork of a culture captive to bad ideas. It is death for death; and if we don't put an end to it, it will kill not only babies but the women and men who embrace it. Our job as Christians is to build a culture that promotes life. When we do, we promote life not just for each individual child but for an entire culture that sits now on the brink.

Recently, The Economist wrote among those intrigued with "the idea of living forever" are "a motley crew of fringe scientists, cultish groups and tech billionaires." The article is a review of The Price of Immortality, a book by journalist Peter Ward. In it, he highlights a quirky, quasi-religious group called "The Church of Perpetual Life," based out of Pompano Beach, Florida. Its adherents mainly talk food supplements and cryonics, while espousing the hope that science will one day grant eternal life. The quest for immortality will always be, to some degree, religious. Even for people with limitless resources, like billionaire tech moguls like Jeff Bezos, the lines between science, science fiction, and an existential crisis can be blurry. Part of the longing is that no matter how many toys we have, there's something more than our materialistic age can offer. As C.S. Lewis said, "If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world." This is part of what Ecclesiastes calls the eternity put in our hearts by God.

A couple weeks ago, a Title IX investigation was opened for three middle school boys from Wisconsin who used the pronoun she for a biologically female student who wished to go by they. Under the Biden administration, refusing to use misaligned pronouns is considered sex discrimination. Even style guides today encourage the use of they if it is the chosen pronoun of an individual. One rationale given is that someone really is, whatever gender they claim, and to not recognize that with pronouns is to contribute to that person's psychological distress. This is the case even if, as Abigail Shrier describes as being increasingly common, a person's gender dysphoria is socially conditioned. So, according to our own government, we are now in a zero-sum game: Either use individuals' chosen pronouns or be blamed for their suicides. Thankfully, many are beginning to recognize that even using the pronoun they for an individual is deeply problematic, much less fully imbibing all that the new transgender orthodoxy commands. Recently, the Manhattan Institute's Leor Sapir wrote an editorial entitled "Don't Say 'They.'" In it, Sapir argues that using they and them to refer to an individual is far from harmless, and amounts to buying into an ideology that "gender is an oppressive social system." In other words, using nonbinary plural pronouns and also opposite-sex pronouns says something that is not true about God's design, the created reality of men and women. So, what are we to do? Shall we use words that align with reality or shall we refuse to risk the psychological distress of a transgender person? Two guiding principles can help us here. First, as Aleksander Solzhenitsyn advised, we must "live not by lies." Second, as Paul advised, "so far as it depends on (us), live peaceably with all." Living like Christians today requires both, together. Words matter. Not only do our words reflect reality, and thus misusing words can distort reality, but Scripture is plain that God's words make up reality. To use words incorrectly is to not only embrace something not true, it is to mislead others away from God. This is not true, nor is it loving. Thus, God says that He hates a "lying tongue." Honoring the second principle, to do our best to "live peaceably with all," is particularly difficult when the choice is to tell a lie or to be responsible for psychological distress. Philosophy professor Nick Meriwether had a creative response when he found himself between this rock and hard place. When a male student requested that Dr. Merriweather refer to him as a female, using feminine titles and pronouns, he offered to only "refer to this student by a first or last name." In response, Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, charged Dr. Merriweather with creating "a hostile environment," placed a warning in his employee file, and threatened future punitive action if he refused to comply. So, Dr. Meriwether filed suit, claiming his free speech had been violated. He won. Shawnee State was forced to award him $400,000 and remove the disciplinary statement. Dr. Merriweather's story demonstrates that people of conscience ought not prematurely surrender their convictions, or believe that cultural defeat in inevitable. Even more, it offers a way forward when it comes to pronouns, telling and truth and living at peace. In English, names do not indicate gender. Pronouns do. Offering to call an individual by their chosen names is a way of respecting a person without saying something that is not true about them. In a conversation with the individual, the pronoun you is acceptable, since in English it refers to both plural and singular, and to both male and female. In no way, does "you" deny that biological sex is binary. On the other hand, speaking in the third person—he, she, or they—when speaking about others is trickier. Some people point out that we use the word they all the time to refer to individuals. However, whenever we say something like, "Somebody left their book" when we don't know who it is. It's different if we do know who it is. For example, it would be inaccurate (and strange) to say, "Abigail left their book." In other words, there are ways to not say something that is not true. We can avoid using nonbinary or opposite-sex pronouns, and instead use names. And, we can use plural pronouns to talk about a group rather than an individual. Still, as Dr. Merriweather's situation illustrates, these alternatives will not satisfy everyone. And, when there is no choice but to use third person pronouns, the only way to tell the truth is to use the pronouns that align with biology, not ideology. To be clear, there is one situation where using someone's chosen name violates the first principle of telling the truth: If you've known a person all of their life, and if their name was given for specifical purposes. So, for example, to ask a mom to use a chosen name over a given name for the child they've raised and loved, is just cruel. Some arg

John and Maria reflect on recent claims that Judaism supports a pro-abortion agenda. The pair reflect on a Breakpoint commentary with Glenn Sunshine that dispels this myth, and explains why the falsehood has picked up steam in culture. Then Maria asks John to explain more of the culture breakdown as we are seeing a rise in gun violence across the country. John helps explain that gun violence is one of many examples of how our culture is in a crisis of meaning. He explains how we've gotten here and what many philosophers are saying about this issue. Maria then asks John to comment on what is being celebrated as Pride Month during the month of June. John explores areas the church can engage this, referencing a piece written by Carl Trueman on social justice and pride month. To close, Maria asks John to comment on a recent Tweet showing public posters in support of reducing the stigma around drug addiction, encouraging recreational use of addictive narcotics. -- Recommendations -- See Life Event>> -- Show References -- Segment 1: Judaism and Abortion While Conservative and Reform Jews do support legal access to abortion, they have only done so recently and despite their moral and religious views, not because of them Breakpoint>> Segment 2: Iain McGilchrist And Uvalde "If you had set out to destroy the happiness and stability of a people, it would have been hard to improve on our current formula: remove yourself as far as possible from the natural world; repudiate the continuity of your culture; believe you are wise enough to do whatever you happen to want and not only get aways with it, but have a right to it — and a right to silence those who disagree; minimise the role played by a common body of belief; actively attack and dismantle every social structure as a potential source of oppression; and reject the idea of a transcendent set of values." It seems to me that she is making a point complementary to Dr. McGilchrist's: that we have created a culture and indeed a civilization that produces unhappy, unstable people, and provides them with the means to stay hidden from the rest of us, and to inflict mass murder. The American Conservative>> Segment 3: Social justice demands our opposition to its celebration and symbols The Christian cause of this month should be opposing Pride Month and its flag in as public and strident a way as many have opposed racism and its symbols. Let us have many blog posts and tweets on the topic. And may we even have pointed op-eds and major articles slamming Pride by those Christians privileged enough to have access to the pages of The Atlantic and The New York Times. Social justice surely demands it. And I, for one, am looking forward to reading them all. WNG>> Religious Liberty Is Good for Everyone for Many Reasons Often, the term religious liberty is cynically thrown around in cultural discourse by those critical of the legal or social arguments for religious liberty. Religious people are accused of being ignorant or selfish, of only caring about their own rights, or of "clinging to their guns and religion." At the same time, some Christians wrongly talk about religious liberty as if it's only for Christians, or as if religion should be kept personal, private, and out of the public square. Breakpoint>> Most People Don't Agree With Trans Ideology Most Americans do understand the categories of biological sex and feel uncomfortable foisting harmful ideology on children. Breakpoint>> Segment 4: Drug Addiction and Harm Reduction This normalizes injecting deadly life-changing drugs "avoid using alone" 🤔 "Start w small doses" 👀 "Using safely" 😳 This is twisted Twitter>>

The latest Dr. Strange movie is making waves, partly because of its dark, violent, and even occultist overtones. Heroes are brutally murdered, seances are had, and undead souls go shrieking in and out of books of demonic curses. As one critic put it, I worry that younger kids who are excited to see the typical Marvel movie may get frightened by the very, very dark tone …. but hey, everyone needs that movie from their childhood that gave them nightmares, right? Mine was Poltergeist; maybe for some kids it will be The Multiverse of Madness. They don't need this one. The Marvel Cinematic Universe usually has plenty to appreciate: heroism, redemption, and a striving for that which is good. Even if it mostly paints with broad brushes to reach bigger audiences, that's why the movies have been a kind of cultural unifier. But Multiverse of Madness mixes the script, to the detriment of the audience. Christians don't have to agree with everything to engage with a movie—but we should never take off our glasses of discernment even for a series we once had reason to like.

During the "Preparing for a Post-Roe World" event at the annual Wilberforce Weekend conference, Stephanie Gray Connors responded to various slogans that are used in our cultural moment to promote abortion. Here's her response to the slogan, "Abortion is healthcare." Abortion is healthcare. Instead of using five minutes to reply, it's really tempting to just use five words. "What? That is ridiculous." To respond to that, what we want to do is ask a question, two in particular. We want to ask, "What is abortion, and what is healthcare?" In terms of answering the question, "What is abortion?" I'm reminded of something my dad would tell me growing up. My dad is originally from Scotland. He didn't immigrate to Canada, where I'm originally from, until he was in his thirties, which means my dad's got a fantastic Scottish accent, right? He's right from Glasgow, Barrhead. Anyway, so my dad would always say to me growing up, "Right, Stephanie, your old Scottish grandfather used to say use their own words against them." So, when it comes to answering the question, "What is abortion?" Don't quote a pro-lifer. Use the abortion supporter's words against them. Go to their textbooks. What do they say? And, so, I went to the National Abortion Federation's textbook on abortion. It's called the Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. And in chapter 10, they specifically refer to feticidal techniques, feticidal techniques. So, the question we want to ask is this: "What is the meaning of the root word cide?" Feticidal, cide. That means to kill. So, there's an admission there by using the term feticidal, that it's a technique that involves killing. Or take one of their chapters on D&E abortions after 12 weeks. That chapter in this textbook refers to the pregnancy elements by calling them "spinal cord" and "calvarium." Well, we want to ask, "The spinal cord and calvarium of who?" That textbook is not referring to the spinal cord of the pregnant woman, but rather of the preborn child. So, there's this admission that it's killing and that it involves parts not of the woman but of the baby and dismembering those particular parts. Then, there's Planned Parenthood itself. We just heard the reference to Margaret Sanger, their founder. And yet, would you know that back in 1952, long before Roe v. Wade, they had a brochure not on abortion but on birth control. And in answering questions about birth control, they answered the question, "Is birth control abortion?" And they said, quote, "Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." End quote. Planned Parenthood, 1952. So, if we're asking the question, "What is abortion?" We get the answer from abortion supporters that abortion is killing. So, then we have to ask ourselves if we're trying to figure out whether killing is healthcare, "What is health care?" And we know healthcare involves the treatment and prevention of disease or maintaining and restoring health. So, the question is "What disease are we responding to when someone's pregnant?" And the answer is pregnancy isn't a disease. It's a sign the body is working right. If you have cancer of the eye, you might have to remove the eye. It could cause you to be blind, but you never take a healthy eye and maim it. So, with abortion, we actually have a healthy body, a healthy state—a pregnancy—which should occur because the body is fertile at that time. And then abortion is maiming that. It's like destroying an eye that's functioning well. It doesn't make sense. And it's certainly not healthcare. You know, some abortion supporters might say, "Well, abortion is healthcare because physicians do it." So, we want to ask a question: "Just because the doctor does something, does his action suddenly become morally acceptable by his involvement?" And then to answer that, we can use a little parable. Imagine you have someone working in the black-market underground organ-harvesting industry where they kidnap people or take political prisoners and have their organs removed—maybe their kidneys, maybe their liver, maybe their heart—and transplant them into someone who's paid good money to get access to those organs. We all agree that's unethical. But in order to remove the organs from one person and successfully implant them in another, you can't have just a random person on the street doing that, right? You need a physician to do it. Would we ever say because it's a surgeon working in the black underground human organ trafficking market—would we ever say that that type of organ harvesting is ethical and healthcare because a doctor does it? And obviously, we would say it is not ethical, and it's not healthcare because what a physician is doing in that case is destructive to a human person. And, so, since we know the preborn child is a human person, albeit younger, and because we know abortion kills that human person, and because we know healthcare is about maintaining health and restoring a sick body to a healthy

John answers what Christians can do in the wake of a series of mass shootings that reveal we're not right as a culture. Before answering that question, John responds to a listener who asks if incrementalism is the best strategy for prolifers to honor God.

Technology is a gift, but there are real problems with certain forms of prenatal screening. When used to help parents prepare to care for an infant with anticipated genetic conditions, it's an amazing asset. Instead, it is too often used to decide whether or not a child should live. Recently Daniel Navon, in an article written for Scientific American, raised his own concerns. "Prenatal screening is big business," he writes. "The annual market for [noninvasive prenatal screening technology] is already around $4 billion dollars and is growing rapidly." The problem is that "including a condition on a prenatal genetic test implies that it may be incompatible with a 'life worth living.'" One result, he warns, could be that religious communities, and staunchly pro-life states, will see increasing populations of those with genetic disorders. So be it. That wouldn't be a crisis. We must always resist the temptation to build a perfect world, especially when it comes "not by eliminating defects, but eliminating people." If Navon's predictions prove true, it would be a badge of honor.

A year ago, Biden administration officials standardized a radically new interpretation of the word gender. In a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services, officials mandated all employers must cover the cost of so-called "transgender medicine" in their health insurance plans. In response, the Christian Employers Alliance sued HHS on behalf of a coalition of Christian-owned businesses. A few weeks ago, a federal district court ruled for CEA and halted the Biden mandate. Many media outlets, in their coverage of this story, referred to the CEA as a "religious liberty group," identifying them not by what they do but by their legal argument. To be sure, forcing an employer to pay for harmful hormones and violent surgeries on healthy bodies, against their deeply held beliefs, is to violate their religious freedom. All citizens of the United States have an unambiguous right, thanks to the First Amendment, to not just worship inside a church or synagogue or mosque but to order their lives outside of those buildings according to their deeply held beliefs. Whether the belief comes from religion, conscience, or some mix of the two, the ideas that men and women are real and distinct things and that their bodies shouldn't be experimented upon is widely held across cultures, religions, scientific disciplines, and human history. Legally speaking, then, it was perfectly sound for the Christian Employers Alliance to argue that forcing employers to subsidize those experiments violates their religious freedom. And, by doing so, the CEA wasn't arguing to protect their own rights, only. They are fighting for the common good. Often, the term religious liberty is cynically thrown around in cultural discourse by those critical of the legal or social arguments for religious liberty. Religious people are accused of being ignorant or selfish, of only caring about their own rights, or of "clinging to their guns and religion." At the same time, some Christians wrongly talk about religious liberty as if it's only for Christians, or as if religion should be kept personal, private, and out of the public square. These views are somewhere between incomplete and flat-out wrong, misunderstanding what religious liberty is and why it matters. The lawsuit filed by the Christian Employers Alliance against the federal government offers helpful clarity. Christians care about the religious freedom of others, not only in the sense that protecting our religious freedom helps others maintain theirs, which in itself is a moral good. Christians care about religious freedom because we believe Christian claims about life and the world are true, true for everyone, and the world is better off when we are not denying those truths. If men and women are real things, made by God for a purpose and with a good design, to deny that goodness or mutilate that design is harmful, whether or not the person doing it believes in Jesus. Though being a Christian might determine whether or not someone accepts the truth, it doesn't make the truth more or less true. And, if loving our neighbors includes keeping them from harm whenever we can, we'll want to keep the freedom for truth to remain in the public square. The cultural tidal wave of "trans medicine" can rightly be characterized as medical malpractice, even abuse. Medical institutions are prescribing puberty-blocking hormones and, increasingly, sterilizing surgeries to adults and children at skyrocketing rates. Refusing to be co-opted in this kind of abuse is not some sort of "don't tread on me" self-defense. Recently, writing in WORLD Opinions, author Abigail Dodds pushed back against the caricature of the self-interested Christians taking some kind of perverse pleasure in "fighting the culture wars": It is surely true that the kingdom of God advances not through resentment but rather by those who bear witness to Jesus in sincerity and truth. Yet, I wonder where and to whom some think we are to bear witness? What is all this Good News for anyway? Do we not believe we are against the world for the world? Do we deny that God's ways are truly good for all? Christianity has been a unique force for good in the world, for both its adherents and non-believers. It is a great horror to lie about and/or to mutilate our bodies. Hopefully more Christians will, like the Christian Employers Alliance, refuse to live by lies. A world where living out Christian faith is suppressed or illegal is a worse world, more corrupt, more exploitative, and more dangerous for everyone. Fighting for religious liberty isn't selfish. It's a way to love God, and our neighbors.

A new poll, commissioned by Summit Ministries with national survey firm McLaughlin & Associates, suggests that there is a gap between what people believe and what they're willing to say. Some 64% of those polled believe that "transgenderism is not a healthy human condition." However, while 30% indicated they are willing to speak out on the issue, another 34% say they stay silent on the issue so as "to not offend others." Measuring public opinion is notoriously tricky. At the same time, it's important to know that despite headlines and popular perception, the triumph of trans ideology is not inevitable. In reality, most Americans do understand the categories of biological sex and feel uncomfortable foisting harmful ideology on children. This means that what we say and do on this issue matters. Os Guinness made this point on a recent episode of the Upstream podcast. Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists, but we're more susceptible to the whims of the most vocal popular opinion than we realize. The loudest voices often cow people into silence, but Christians, with courage and gentleness, must speak up. Along the way, we may just win some people over.

Recently, U.S. House Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez huffed on Twitter, "For people who say, 'I believe it's a life,' some people don't. Our Jewish brothers and sisters, they are able to have an abortion according to their faith!" The central point AOC is trying to make in the video is one that is on repeat these days, as America awaits the Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case. Not all religions agree on when life begins, so therefore, the pro-life movement intends to impose Christian morality on everyone else. "When does life begin?" asked an NPR article a few weeks ago. "Religions don't agree." In the piece, author Sarah McCammon also pointed to Judaism as the obvious counter to Christianity. Of course, it's not all that surprising that various religions would hold differing views on matters of significance. After all, religions don't agree about whether God exists, who God is, how we would know, whether Jesus is God, and whether we are God. And that's just disagreements about God. Expand the discussion to morality, heaven, hell, sin, and salvation, and we'd be here all day. Even so, the constant reference to Judaism as the counter to "fundamentalist Christianity" (as AOC put it in the video) led me to wonder whether it is really the case that Judaism supports a woman's right to abort her child. Thankfully, the eminent historian, Dr. Glenn Sunshine, is part of the Colson Center editorial team. In summary, here's what he discovered. Though Jews today differ tremendously on abortion (unsurprisingly, since they also differ tremendously on all manner of theological, liturgical, moral, and political issues), historically, the position is much clearer. Except to save the life of the mother, Judaism has historically opposed abortion. The Jewish position goes back to Genesis 9:6. Because this is the record of God's instructions to Noah after the Flood, many Jewish scholars have understood this verse to be binding on all humanity. While modern Christian Bibles such as the ESV translate the verse as, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in the image of God," Jewish scholars who comment on this passage suggest that the text actually says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man within man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man." Rabbis who understood the text to read "man within man" believe that this teaching refers to an unborn child. Thus, these scholars argue for a universal prohibition of abortion for all of Noah's descendants, Jews and Gentiles alike. In Jewish law, the unborn is recognized as nearly a full-fledged human being, but not quite. Consequently, it is a sin to deliberately harm a fetus, but doing so did not carry the full penalty associated with harming someone already born. In Exodus, a man who strikes a woman and causes her to give birth was not guilty of murder but had to pay a financial penalty. While this could refer simply to a premature but live birth, to the rabbis this referred to miscarriage or stillbirth. They treated this loss as more of a property crime than a murder, despite the unborn being made in the image of God. Similarly, if a woman's pregnancy threatens her life, the fetus was to be considered "one who is pursuing another" to kill her. Jewish law permits one to kill a pursuer to save the life of the one pursued, and hence abortion is permissible to save the mother's life if directly threatened by the pregnancy. If the baby's head had emerged, however, the baby was given the same moral status as the mother and thus could not be killed. Since Judaism refuses to assign differing values to life, all major Orthodox rabbis authorized to decide matters of Jewish law reject abortion for fetal abnormalities or deformities. Historically, then, Judaism has opposed abortion under normal circumstances but permitted it in a very limited number of situations, primarily the saving of the mother's life. For example, the great medieval rabbi Maimonides permitted abortion only if the pregnancy "definitely and without question" endangered the life of the mother. This was the nearly universal view within Judaism until less than a century ago. Some modern Orthodox Jewish scholars permit abortion to save the life of the mother even if the fetus is not the direct cause of the threat to the mother's life. Others extend permission further to protecting the mother's physical or mental health; some to pregnancies caused by forbidden sexual relations such as adultery, rape, or incest; and some, a minority, to severe and proven fetal abnormalities. These are not universal concessions, however, and most Orthodox Jewish scholars advocate making such decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than establishing general rules for handling these situations. The Conservative branch of Jews, unlike the Orthodox Jews, generally follows a somewhat looser interpretation of these guidelines. In 1983, leading rabbis issued a statem

A trend that has troubled researchers for years is the rising "deaths of despair," particularly among blue-collar Americans. Opioids, for example, continue to ravage rural towns across America. According to data drawn from the U.S. Census, "The occupation with the highest suicide rate is Construction and Extraction … nearly 40% higher than the occupation with the second highest suicide rate." In addition to reflecting dangerous work conditions, tough economic prospects, and injury, a deeper problem impacts everyone from teens to seniors, those with degrees and those without: a culture-wide loss of meaning. As J.D. Vance put it in Hillbilly Elegy, "I knew even as a child that there were two separate sets of mores and social pressures. My grandparents embodied one type: old-fashioned, quietly faithful, self-reliant, hardworking." The other mindset Vance describes as "consumerist, isolated, angry, distrustful." The loss of a why leads to struggles with all kinds of whats. Without meaning, America is floundering. The answer is the One who never left us: the One who came that we "may have life, and have it to the full."

The news has been relentless for a while now, but especially these past two weeks. After multiple mass shootings, the nation is grieving. People are angry that nothing seems to change. According to the FBI, there's been a 50% uptick in "active shooting incidents" since last year, and that's not counting the shooting that left 21 dead in Uvalde, Texas. "The two attacks (in Buffalo and Uvalde) are not outliers," announced National Public Radio. "Mass shootings happen in the U.S. with depressing regularity." According to their count, 213 so far this year. A variety of things and people are being blamed: access to guns, social isolation, politicians, talk show hosts, authorities, harmful ideas, and more. Behind any event this tragic will be a number of contributing factors. At the same time, we can no longer think of mass shootings as isolated incidents. They must be understood as indications of social breakdown, along with spiking rates of addiction, overdoses, violent crime, suicide, sexual confusion, and even airplane incidents. Last week, a friend reminded me of Chuck's words. One can easily imagine Chuck Colson extending that analysis to today's issues, "The problem is not gun control, poverty, talk-show hosts, or race. The problem is the breakdown of moral values in American life, and our culture simply cannot respond." In fact, Chuck Colson is not the only thinker to have pointed to the inevitabilities of cultural breakdown. "Great civilizations are not murdered," writes historian Arnold Toynbee. "They commit suicide." In other words, civilizations do not last forever, and there are rules that determine whether or not they have a future. At the recent Wilberforce Weekend, author and social critic Os Guinness stated that we are living in "a civilizational moment": "All the great civilizations reach a moment when they're out of touch with the inspiration that made them. And there's a critical transition moment when they either go towards renewal or down to decline. We are at such a moment, if not already past it. For example, a civilization cannot survive if it is not able to prepare for the future. The dual modern realities of debt, both individually and nationally, and demographics, especially the collapse of birth rates below replacement levels, indicate that as a people we live more for immediate gratification than a strong tomorrow. Of course, in an ultimately meaningless world, there is no sense of tomorrow. Increasingly, studies reveal that our culture suffers from a catastrophic loss of meaning. This only makes sense in a culture already detached from ultimate categories of truth and identity, but that doesn't make it any easier to live here. At the same time, life, even at a time of cultural collapse, does not come to an end. People are born and die. They gather and meet, buy and sell, create and invent. Civilizational collapse is never sudden, but almost always extends over decades and even centuries. What can we do when our civilization is disintegrating around us? First, we must remember that although the challenges of this cultural moment are real, they are never the whole story. The whole story is, instead, the story centered on the person and work of Christ, the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the cosmos. The ending of that story is sure, despite the chaos of the moment. Second, rather than withdraw from the challenges around us, we give whatever good we can to the world. William Wilberforce, for example, not only lobbied against the slave trade but also fought to advance moral values in a corrupt nation. Our best efforts may not succeed, but that's not why we do it. We do it out of love for God and neighbor. Third, we must reject small compromises. Hannah Arendt wrote about the "banality of evil," how in certain cultural moments, evil advances in mundane and seemingly harmless ways. Solomon is an example of this. The last half of 1 Kings 10 reads like a ledger of his remarkable success: extravagant wealth, imported horses and chariots from Egypt, and 700 wives (with accompanying military alliances and treaties). However, Deuteronomy 17 records that, years before, Moses had instructed the Israelites about what their king should not do: He must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, "You shall never return that way again." And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. The author of the Book of Kings knows exactly what he is doing here... He is telling the exploits of Solomon in a way the Israelite readers would understand. Now, whether we're in a time of decline or a time of amazing success like Solomon, the same response is required from God's people. We must be faithful to what He asks us to do, to what He asks us to believe, and to how He instructs us to live. In all of these things, we take this mo

Os Guinness discusses the civilizational moment for America, where our nation is faced with a choice to turn to renewal or go down the path to decline. This presentation was a part of the Wilberforce Weekend even in May. To register for the digital recordings from this event, visit www.wilberforceweekend.org

"There's already a revolution in abortions happening," wrote Christina Cauterucci in Slate magazine recently, "and the Supreme Court can't touch it." She's referring to so-called "medical" abortions, when pills are used to terminate a child's life at home. As of 2020, this kind of abortion was already the most common, and with the Supreme Court preparing to dismantle Roe v. Wade, it will only become more common. One impact of this will be to drive abortion even farther into the shadows, away from even medical supervision. In fact, during COVID, the FDA allowed abortion pills to be prescribed without a doctor's visit. Now the pandemic is over, but the policy remains. The toll this will have on America's unborn children, their parents, and our national conscience will be significant. Hidden evil always flourishes. That's why we need pro-life legislation that extends to the abortion pill, but passing it won't be easy. The Church will need to be out there, making the case for the dignity of all life, making the path of forgiveness known, offering hope and healing in Christ. And, we'll need courageous lawmakers to take the next step in putting an end to abortion, including by mail.

Today, Memorial Day, I want to share a commentary on Memorial Day from Chuck Colson. Here's Chuck: This Memorial Day, reflect with me on how we should respond to the enormous sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. Memorial Day is when we honor the men and women of our armed services who have made "the supreme sacrifice," who gave their lives for their country. Especially these days, when Memorial Day seems nothing more than a time for cookouts and swim parties, we cannot be reminded often enough about how great a debt we owe our war dead. They gave up their hopes and dreams, families, and friends. They submitted themselves to rigorous discipline—something I understand as a former Marine—24-hour-a-day duty—and placed their lives in great peril. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Their sacrifice should inspire in us a profound sense of gratitude. Gratitude for the freedoms we enjoy, bought with a price. And that gratitude should compel us to lives of service as well. Serving Christ, our neighbor, and yes, our nation. I can't help but recall the brilliant film Saving Private Ryan. James Ryan, now in his seventies, has returned with his family to the military cemetery in Normandy. He visits the grave of Capt. John Miller, the man who, a half a century before, led the mission to retrieve—to save—Pvt. Ryan. At the end of the mission, Miller was fatally wounded. As he lay dying, his final words to Pvt. Ryan were "James. Earn this ... earn it." We then see Ryan kneeling at Capt. Miller's grave, marked by a cross. Ryan, his voice trembling with emotion, says, Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me. Red-eyed, Ryan turns to his wife and says, "Tell me I've led a good life ... tell me I am a good man." With great dignity, she says, "You are." With that, James Ryan salutes the grave of Capt. Miller. I tell this story in greater detail in my book The Good Life, which you can purchase at colsoncenter.org. You see, Pvt. Ryan, out of gratitude for Capt. Miller's sacrifice, did all in his power to live a good life. And Memorial Day is a great time for each of us to look into the mirror ... to examine our own lives. Are we living good lives in gratitude for all those who have sacrificed for us—including our men and women in the military, our families, our friends, and most of all Christ? Are we, like Ryan, kneeling before the cross? Spielberg, a master cinematographer, had to realize the power of this imagery. Are we, out of gratitude, doing our duty for Christ, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ministering to those in prison, in whatever harvest field to which the Lord has called us? Examine your life. And this Memorial Day, at the very least, thank those who have sacrificed for you and those you know who have served in our nation's armed forces. Maybe you'll do what I do when you see a guy or gal in uniform ... at the airport, at the store, wherever ... walk up to them and thank them for their service. And then go and remember Whom it is you serve.

John and Maria discuss the Uvalde shooting, working to understand the role of culture to respond to faltering character. Maria asks John about gun rights, and the pair discuss if freedoms become license and harm people what do we focus on: the conscience or the constable. Then Maria asks John to comment to the recent Southern Baptist Convention's independent investigation by Guidepost on abuse allegations. The report exposes horrible actions and responses in local churches and the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. John offers some insight, noting a recent Breakpoint commentary. To close, John asks Maria to comment on a recent article she penned in Christianity Today. Maria explores if a common accusation regarding abortion is factually true. Many note that if abortion laws pass they will limit the types of services for mothers who have ectopic pregnancies and other pregnancies where a child dies ineutero. Maria dispels these myths and explores some of the underlying medical community thoughts and practices that undo this myth that is being retold in public circles.

Yesterday, when our writing team gathered to discuss the horrific events at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, we struggled to know how to even process what had happened, much less what to say: Yet, another evil attack on vulnerable children; evil so shocking, it's impossible to fathom; and, at the same time, a story horrifyingly familiar. On Tuesday morning, an 18-year-old young man, after shooting his own grandmother, drove to his former elementary school, rammed through the security gate with his car, and barricaded himself in a classroom. Before it was all over, 19 children and two teachers had been killed. As if that were not horrible enough, it came just days after two other mass shootings. On May 15, one man was killed and five more wounded at a California church, and the day before that, 10 were killed in a racially motivated assault in Buffalo, New York. Over 30 dead in less than a week. For what? This simply should not be. We're left with a lot of uncomfortable questions. How could anyone be capable of such evil? How long until something like this happens again? Why does this keep happening? Why so often here in America, but rarely elsewhere, in places like Britain or Australia? Why did it not happen here even a generation or two ago? What is plaguing young men in our culture, who are far more likely to commit acts of evil like this? Basic clarity seems elusive, much less progress. As a friend pointed out, it's alarming to think that younger generations are being conditioned to think that these events are normal occurrences, and that retreating to political corners and blaming others is the normal way to respond to them. That would be a tragedy upon a tragedy. Still, what hasn't changed is that God has called His people to a particular time and place, and He's called us to be part of His redemptive work in the world in this time and this place. While the temptation to "just do something" at times like this is strong, it also quite often misleading. Thank God for the vast resources He has given us in Scripture, and how they apply even to times as confusing as these. First, the psalms of lament and the imprecatory psalms offer godly direction for our rage and sorrow. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly, God invites His people to weep before Him for the sorrows of the world and to be angry at the injustices we experience. Second, the Apostle Paul gives us something to do at times like this: "Mourn with those who mourn." This instruction matches the incarnational way that God, in Christ Jesus, interacted with His fallen world. He was with us. May God give strength to His people in Uvalde, Texas, to be the Church there. At the same time, this is another symptom of culture-wide brokenness, so all of us have the same incarnational work to do. And we can do this work, because of what we learn from the shortest verse in the Bible. In one of the most poignant moments in Scripture, we read that "Jesus wept." In Bethany, Christ joins in with a dead man's sisters in their mourning for their loss. What makes this so astonishing is that Jesus knows that He will raise Lazarus to life again, and, by doing so, he is going to end the family's suffering, even turn it into a party. Yet, He is not aloof or dismissive of their grief. Instead, He weeps with them—for the pain of a fallen world, for the unnaturalness of death, for the hopelessness people feel in the face of tragedy. Because Christ—who had the power of life and death at His command—can weep with those who weep, we can do the same. And finally, we have the gift of knowing that one day, death itself will be cast into Hell. So, we do not grieve as though without hope. One day, everything sad "will become untrue." And because we do not weep as the world weeps, the Church has so much to offer when the world does weep. Like now.

A couple of weeks ago, an article by National Public Radio's Sarah McCammon's made the rounds on various public media outlets with this headline: "When Does Life Begin? Religions Don't Agree." Clearly, it was an attempt to warn pro-lifers against stubborn certainty on abortion. The central claim of the article is that not every religion holds that human life begins at conception. Of course they don't, but why would they? Religions don't agree on all kinds of essential matters, such as if there's a God, who is God, whether Jesus was God, or whether we are God. And that's just about God. If disagreement among vastly different worldviews is somehow supposed to trivialize the convictions of pro-lifers, wouldn't the same reasoning trivialize any convictions of religious abortion supporters, too? So, what's the point? Interestingly enough, even though religions disagree on whether life begins at conception, science doesn't. Or at least, every embryology textbook is clear about when life begins. Honest abortion supporters, such as Peter Singer, acknowledge as much, that abortion takes a human life. So, should we follow the science, or not?

During the "Preparing for a Post-Roe World" event at the recent Wilberforce Weekend, Jim Daly described how the Focus on the Family team displayed the truth about preborn babies right in the middle of Times Square. The event not only made a powerful case against abortion, it showed how courage is contagious, and how Christians can be emboldened to speak the truth in love even in difficult situations. Here's Jim Daly, explaining what happened in Times Square before the pandemic: What the Lord put on my heart was "Show them the baby." Isn't that just like the Lord to make it real simple? Show the baby! So, we applied for the permits and everything. Six months, eight months out, they're not showing up. We got the permits at 7:30 the morning of our event. But the Catholic cops were awesome. Tip the hat to the Catholic cops in Times Square. They called and said, "Hey, we like you guys. We're going to do all we can do to help you out here in New York, OK?" That's a true story. We're like, "Awesome. We've got the cops on our side." But anyway, we get there, and there was a stage, we had 20,000 supporters that came in. 20,000. We were only permitted for 10,000, but they came in, and then we had all the bystanders. It was real simple. We had a couple of speakers, and then we showed them the ultrasound right in Times Square. Now, the big ABC and all the big jumbotrons when we were eight months out [we asked] "We want to buy inventory for those jumbotrons." "Sure, there's plenty of inventory. What do you want to show?" "A preborn baby." "You know what? We're all out of time." That is a true story as well. That's exactly what they said. The team came to me and said, "OK. Let's just bring in our own jumbotrons." So, we did, and we showed that baby…. Oh, whose baby was it? Abby, Abby Johnson's baby in the back of the mobile (ultrasound) unit that people were spitting on and cursing at. And Abby's in there, and her baby goes across Times Square and that baby's heartbeat. Bum, bump, bum, bump. And everybody stopped. It was like this amazing spiritual silence. I mean it just stopped everything. Everybody was looking. People were crying. I think one of the things that we need to do is show that emotional connection. These people know what they're doing. They absolutely know what they're doing. About two weeks ago I had a broadcast recording that we're going to air in a couple of weeks with Winsome Sears, Lieutenant Governor in Virginia. So, these are her words to me. I could never say this, but she did, and I'll repeat them. She said, "Planned Parenthood has been far more effective at killing black babies than the KKK ever was." She went on to say 6% of the population is African American women but 40% of the abortions. And we don't think Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist, succeeded? Oh, she succeeded. Planned Parenthood just doesn't admit it. I had a Planned Parenthood executive tell me that. I said, "I'm a business person. I came from international paper. I didn't go to seminary." And I just said, "What is it that drives you?" She said, "Cash flow." Cash flow. And I said, "That's a very honest answer." And one of the things we're looking at— pray for us—because I said to her, "If it's cash flow, what if I gave you—what's an average abortion?" She said $600. I said, "What if I could pay you 1,200 for an adoption placement?" She said some clinics might do that. So, I'm working behind the scenes right now—not so much now—to find some clinics that might be willing. Let's turn them into adoption clinics. Wouldn't that be amazing? I'll end with this. Again, I think for us in this century to look back to the first, second, third century: What did the Church do? That's the blueprint, and what it is is action: Telemachus going to the gladiator events on January 1, 404 A. D. He went down to see what this thing was all about. He saw men killing each other in the colosseum. He jumps onto the floor of the colosseum in his robe and says, "You shouldn't be doing this. You're destroying people made in God's image, each one of you." And they killed him. But that was the last day they had gladiator events because it made an impression on the empire. So, how do we make those impressions on the empire, that even hard hearts might crack open, and they might say, "Maybe it is life"? That was Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family at our "Preparing for a Post-Roe World" event from the Wilberforce Weekend. Focus on the Family will be hosting its annual SeeLife conference on June 14 at 7 p.m. Though this year's event won't be hosted in Time Square, it will be livestreamed and something you won't want to miss. For more information on the SeeLife conference, visit: focusonthefamily.com/seelife22/

John answers how a listener can respond and think well about the issue of replacement theory, something that has become a popular topic due to the recent shooting in Buffalo, New York. John also gives perspective to how abortion became not only illegal, but also unthinkable. He answers which came first and how the abortion movement can replicate the trajectory of slavery becoming unthinkable in society. To close, John answers a listener's question related to social movements inside the business community. He provides a path forward for Christians who find themselves in a changing landscape.

According to the BBC, the Chinese government has arrested Joseph Zen, a 90-year-old Roman Catholic cardinal and outspoken critic of the Beijing regime. He is now in chains for his role in the 2019 human rights protests. On the same day this arrest was reported, the Daily Mail announced that ISIS forces had slaughtered 20 Nigerian Christians, guilty only of being Christians, which was enough to seal their martyrdom. While the last few years have presented incredible challenges to the Western church—plagues, riots, scandals, even war—followers of Christ in places like China and Nigeria have consistently weathered incredible hardship, and for so long. Their stories remind us that there's a wider world out there—and a wider Church. Ours is not the only part being played in the grand drama of God's redemptive work in the world. Let's pray for our suffering brothers and sisters around the world, and take hope that their role in shaping Christ's kingdom doesn't rest in our success but in God's faithfulness.

This past Sunday, a devastating report was released about America's largest Protestant denomination. According to the Guidepost Solutions' Report of the Independent Investigation on the Southern Baptist Convention, not only has sexual abuse been a scourge within the denomination, but leading members actively obstructed efforts to expose the guilty, hindered attempts by victims to report the crimes, and worked to maintain the public image of the Convention at the expense of the truth. What the victims have been forced to endure for so long is sickening and heartbreaking. Lives will be forever marred by the corruption exposed in the report. Though it feels as if some new report is revealing sexual misconduct, abuse, or criminal behavior within the Church every few months, in God's economy, the day after evil is exposed is better than the day before. When evil is allowed to remain hidden, it flourishes. When it is exposed, both victims and perpetrators are in a better position to find grace, healing, and forgiveness. At the same time, we can expect the world to be wagging its fingers at Christian hypocrisy. In response, there's a strong pull in our hearts to point right back. After all, the infamous "casting couches" of Hollywood legend have raised such lechery to an abhorrent art form. And this has gone on for decades. Even Shirley Temple, the Golden Girl of classic cinema, was chased around an office by one of the top movie moguls of her day. Yet, he kept his post despite this and other crimes. More recently, after headlining everything from dramas, to comedies, to action flicks through the 90s and early 2000s, Brendan Fraser found himself cast from favor after refusing the very aggressive advances of a (male) movie executive. Five years ago, Oscar-winning Kevin Spacey was blacklisted as stories broke of his habitual abuse of young actors. Most notorious of all, Harvey Weinstein was one of the most powerful men in the film industry until the rising #MeToo movement gained enough momentum to bring him down for his abuse of young women and threats to any who spoke against him. And that's just Hollywood. We could also talk at length of public schools, congressional leaders, and corporate executives. Of course, why would we expect any better from a culture like ours, in which sexual activity is treated as the high point of human existence? When Hugh Hefner is treated as a virtual saint and praised as an advocate for women's dignity, who is the world to cast stones at the Church for its own failings? If they're not any better than we are, why do we get the third degree while they get a pass? It's almost as if followers of Christ are held to a higher standard or something! To this we can only say, we are. By God. One of the premiere accounts of worldly morality in the Scriptures is in the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 19, the story is told of two angels coming to Sodom, meeting Lot in the town square, who takes them into his home. After the men of the city seek to sexually accost his guests, Lot instead offers his daughters to them as sexual sacrifices. This horrific tale is echoed later in Judges 19. Visitors from out of town, a meeting near the city, an invitation to dinner, a rapacious mob, and finally, a young woman offered to the lust of the crowd which, in this case, turns murderous and leads to military revenge, mass executions, and human trafficking. In this story, however, it's not sinful pagans. It's the people of God who commit an evil that exceeds even that of Sodom. The reason the story is told how it is—other than to report what actually happened—is clear. The people of Israel had become indistinguishable from their pagan neighbors. And this, God could not abide. In Romans 2, Paul writes, "You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, 'The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'" And, in 1 Corinthians 5, the apostle is aghast that a member of a Church has done worse than "the pagans." Sexual abuse is just as horrible and evil within the Church as without, yet we are more guilty because we should know better. We know where the human propensity for sin, evil, and abuse comes from. We know the human capacity to deceive and deflect. We know our own vulnerability, and the sin nature shared by all after Eden. So, if our defense for the sins of the Church is that those among us are no more guilty than Harvey Weinstein and Hugh Hefner, it's fair to say that we've lost the plot of our own story. When the unbelieving world acts in an immoral manner, it is no less horrible to its victims, but this is tragically to act according to their worldview. When Christians do the same, it is an abomination. After all, God doesn't simply call us to be no worse than the world: He calls us to be set apart, faithful to His standards. As Peter Kreeft once observed, when you find yourself on the edge of the moral abyss, the only way forward is backward

On Friday, according to the Catholic News Agency, "San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone instructed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to present herself for Holy Communion until she publicly repudiates her support for abortion." On Monday, Whoopi Goldberg told the archbishop via her audience on The View, "This is not your job, dude. That is not up to you to make that decision." It is, of course, the archbishop's job to oversee the proper administration of the sacraments in that geographic region of the church. It is exactly his job, in fact. Other than playing a nun in the Sister Act movies, it's not clear what qualifies Goldberg to tell an archbishop what his job is. Years ago, Dr. Frank Beckwith taught a group of students how to respond to someone dismissive of their arguments: "If anyone ever says to you, 'Who are to say what's right?' just ask back 'Who are you to say, "Who are you to say?"'" This isn't about Whoopi, of course. Skeptics, secularists, and non-believers will often ask, "Who are you to speak for Jesus?" while speaking for Jesus. A good response is, "Well, who are you to ask?"

On the YouTube channel "Lutheran Satire," there's a video entitled, "A Christian and a Feminist Almost Agree on Stuff." In it, two sock puppets discuss the cultural breakdown of sexuality and marriage and how pornography plagues both. "Pornography harms women," says the feminist sock puppet. "Totally agree," says the Christian puppet. "Pornography demeans women, and it also corrupts men by making them think of women as nothing but sexual objects." "Therefore," interrupts the feminist sock puppet, "women should empower themselves by taking control of the porn industry and producing their own sexually explicit material." To which the Christian puppet responds, "That is not the solution I had in mind." Pornography and sexually suggestive material of any kind objectifies women, training consumers that female bodies are things to be leered at, to be lusted after, rather than persons to be loved and valued. Those Lutheran sock puppets came to mind last week after Sports Illustrated announced the covers of its annual swimsuit issue. Of course, there's never been any point to the swimsuit edition other than to objectify women to the publication's largely male readership. It has nothing at all to do with sports. It has nothing at all to do with even marketing swimsuits. It has been, instead, for decades now, the most visible example of everything that Christians and feminists and other protectors of women have decried about our objectifying culture: selling skin, airbrushed and impossible beauty standards, sexual provocation, etc., etc., etc. This year's cover model does not represent the typical, unreachable standards of thinness that porn and photoshop have imposed on women. However, she is still posed provocatively in a barely there swimsuit, as objectified as any other cover model has ever been. There seems to be some confusion. The problem here is not that all women should be objectified for their bodies. It's that no one should be objectified at all. Valuing a human being made in God's image by changing standards of outward appearance is always wrong. But we don't atone for a sin by committing it against everyone. Now, I know it sounds a bit quaint in 2022 to object to swimsuit covers, but at the heart of even the mildly suggestive material in our culture is a lie that has long consumed our culture, the same one that is at the heart of the always accessible and ever darker online pornography world. That lie is that people are things to be used and therefore can be abstracted from their bodies for our gratification or titillation. This lie can never be made true, even when people consent to it. As Christine Emba pointed out recently in The Washington Post, it is possible for a woman to objectify herself, and therefore consent to things that are actually terrible for her. Consent, Emba concludes, is not a sufficient sexual ethic by itself. We need to talk about a much more important value: love, which she defines, taking a cue from St. Thomas Aquinas, as "willing the good of the other." There is no sense in which reducing a woman to her body and putting her on display for millions is willing her good. No person—man or woman—is merely a body. Christians have always insisted, and must continue to insist against things like prostitution, polygamy, slavery, and pornography. Because human beings are bearers of God's image, they must always be taken seriously, body and soul. If there is a problem with displaying scantily clad women as objects for the eager eyes of sports fans—and there is—if we recognize the connection this ritual has with far darker corners of our culture especially online—and it does—the answer is to stop. Certainly, the answer is not more of the same. We have to treat women as whole people.

Kristan Hawkins, founder and president of the Student for Life. Kirsten spoke at the recent "Preparing for a Post-Roe World" event at the recent Wilberforce Weekend.

The day after a mass shooting in a New York supermarket left 10 people dead, a 68-year-old opened fire on parishioners at a Taiwanese Presbyterian church in southern California. He killed one and injured five before parishioners subdued and tied him up. The man killed in the attack authorities are calling "hate-filled" was 52-year-old Dr. John Cheng, who charged the shooter in an attempt to save fellow church members. Orange County officials called Cheng's actions "heroism" and "a meeting of good versus evil." His quick thinking and courageous actions undoubtedly saved lives, including his recently widowed mother. Mr. Rogers always told kids, in times of calamity, to "look for the helpers." Dr. Cheng is now part of Christian history, a history full of those who ran toward the danger in self-sacrifice. Jesus called this love—when a man lays down his life for his friends—the greatest. It proves that evil will not have the last say, and that evil is overcome with good.

Last Saturday, the country was left grappling with another reminder of human depravity. An 18-year-old gunman entered a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, killing 10 and injuring three more. The victims, who were predominantly black, included Heyward Patterson, a local church deacon; Pearl Young, a retired school teacher; and Aaron Salter, a retired police officer. Mass shootings are too familiar, but no less overwhelming: friends and family in agony, communities left to pick up the pieces, collective rage over the brutal violence, a longing for justice, and a rush to explain why. For many news outlets, the narrative is a cut-and-dried example of right-wing extremism. The shooter's manifesto pointed to an embrace of "replacement theory," the idea that white Americans are being systematically edged out of society by minorities. "That idea," claim Isaac Stanley-Becker and Drew Harwell of The Washington Post, once relegated to the fringe, has gained currency on popular right-wing television programs and in the halls of Congress. The apocalyptic vision has accumulated followers during the coronavirus pandemic, which has deepened political polarization and accelerated the online flow of racist ideology. The shooter's 180-page document confirms that he was indeed motivated by replacement ideology and outright racism. In it he described his plan to deliberately attack a black supermarket, as well as his support for antisemitic and neo-Nazi causes. "I will carry out an attack against the replacers," he wrote, "and will even livestream the attack." In a sort of guilt by association, blame was leveled at Republicans, especially those who hold conservative views on immigration, whether or not they harbor any ill will towards minority groups or immigrant neighbors. Ignored was the shooter's description of his own ideals, which includes outright rejections of conservatism as "corporatism in disguise." "Are you right wing?" he asks rhetorically. "Depending on the definition, sure. Are you left wing? Depending on the definition, sure. Are you a socialist? Depending on the definition." As Kyle Smith at the National Review summed up: The manifesto, while certainly political, is ideologically all over the map, as was the Unabomber's. Whoever your ideological boogeyman of today's discourse is, this person doesn't link up to him very easily. How do we make sense of this? Human beings are meaning-making creatures. The fact that we have an instinctive need to know why bad things happen says something about the kind of creatures we are and the moral kind of universe we inhabit. But we are also prone to misdiagnose the problem, and therefore mis-prescribe a solution, because of our allegiance to false ideologies that become a hammer looking for nails. People are more than many ideologies can explain. This is why Communist and Fascist dictatorships end up looking like each other over time. As my colleague Tim Padgett put it recently, "Sometimes worldviews simply give shape to the evil already within individuals." And that's what the Christian worldview says: That evil is already within individuals. The more the social bonds of a culture unravel, the more that people are pushed to their ideological extremes. This is especially the case in a world where digital technologies both radicalize and incentivize bad behaviors. In such a world, politicized theories dominating our discourse are proving to be inadequate to explain violence on this level. Racism, while not what it was a few decades ago, is far from extinct. In its most diabolical forms, entire groups of people are seen as the enemy, as evident by the shooter's manifesto. At the same time, the current analysis of nearly everything, including these incidents, is being dramatically hampered by what I call a "critical theory mood." While most Americans, including the pundits, have not read the academic source material behind the various expressions of formal critical theory, there is a predisposed commitment, on both the right and the left, to divide the world by tribes, people groups, and political parties and, in doing so, to pre-determine who's right and wrong, good and evil, if by nothing else but association. The dramatically different ways that clearly racially motivated acts are treated and described—compare this event with the Waukesha tragedy a few months ago—based on these people groupings simply demonstrate that we have no clue how to distinguish between good and evil. Critical theory in its formal form or as a cultural mood is short-sighted and inadequate. The Christian vision of the cosmos, people, morality, and human history offers an adequate understanding of good and evil on every level: both societal and individual. As a young man, Tom Tarrants, was injured in a shootout with FBI agents and sent to prison. "If anyone deserved to die, it was certainly me," this former member of the Ku Klux Klan, once filled with racial hatred, wrote recently in Christianity Today. Bu

John and Maria unpack the web of the recent shootings in Buffalo, New York and California. Rather than rest on the narratives, John provides a helpful way to consider the landscape and the underlying ideas that many are glossing over. Then, Maria asks John for perspective on some social media traffic around the recent Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition. Maria provides additional context to help us consider our culture's issue with objectifying women and how the church can provide a better way in this moment. To close, Maria asks John for insight into a few Breakpoint commentaries from the week. John discusses how Russian art is important in this cultural moment, despite the call from some to cancel it in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. John also explains the scenario of a lesser known phenomenon in charitable giving that could impact Christians looking to support biblically-based organizations.

Can we stand for truth without becoming jaded? G.K. Chesterton, in his 1908 book Orthodoxy, describes how when he was a boy, many told him that his ideals would eventually "break up like clouds" and that he'd be forced to put his real faith in simple, practical politics. He writes: What has really happened is exactly the opposite. … I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics. Tongue in cheek as always, Chesterton isn't arguing that politics don't matter. They do. But far too many build their life on the weak foundation of an ever-changing political landscape. It's a recipe for burnout, anger, and disillusionment. Christian hope is secure and makes us better neighbors, parents, spouses, and citizens. The unchanging values and methods of Christ's kingdom give us the strength we need to go on even in the face of changing situations. We'll have to take unpopular stands in our lifetimes, but placing our hope in Christ is the opposite of being naive or impractical. It's the only sure foundation there is.

A recent opinion column made quite a splash. In it, the author observed: In every other situation common to the human experience—eating, drinking, exercise, even email—we have come to realize that limits produce healthier results. It's unlikely that sex and relationships are exceptions to the rule. An unrestrained sexual culture hasn't necessarily led to better sex for all or to better relationships. In many cases, it has inspired numbness, callousness, hurting others and being hurt. And rather than being titillating, sexual overload has become boring. She writes: "Getting rid of the old rules and replacing them with the norm of consent was supposed to make us happy. Instead, many people today feel a bit … lost." If you were to guess who published those words, what would you say? A Christian media outlet like Breakpoint or First Things? A conservative column by Ryan Anderson or Mary Eberstadt at The Heritage Foundation or Daily Wire? What if I told you this was published in The New York Times? The author is Christine Emba, and the opinion column was based on her recent book: Rethinking Sex, a Provocation. Making a case quite controversial for modern ears, Emba argues for a recovery of ethical norms around sex, something "mere consent" is unable to provide. A Catholic, Emba is quick to clarify that she is not advocating for a return to "purity culture," or what many view as the outdated, repressive ethics of orthodox Christianity. She also carefully avoids talking about LGBTQ relationships, which some see as a desire to avoid permanently offending her progressive audience. Even so, the case she does make is profoundly countercultural, and she's making it to a culture that just might be ready to listen. Our culture is, after all, showing signs of sexual exhaustion in the midst of all of its confusion. As one news outlet reported on Valentine's day, "Americans [are] less likely to have sex, partner up and get married than ever." A Pew survey found that nearly half of single adults have given up looking for a partner entirely. Another Pew Research survey showed that 65% of single women have experienced some form of harassment on the dating scene. Porn-inspired violence is so mainstream, Emba writes, that even when women are surprised by inappropriate conduct, they often feel like they can't back out, once consent has been given. One young Twitter user put it this way: "I don't think older generations realize how terrifying dating is for the current generation." In other words, it's time to admit that the idea that consent could adequately govern human sexuality has failed. Consent may be the barest of moral necessities, but it cannot govern something as powerful as sex, especially when sex has been untethered from its purpose, design, and any other moral restraint. So, Emba concludes: [S]ome new understandings may be in order. Maybe even casual sex is significant, an act unlike any other. Maybe some porn-inspired practices—those that eroticize degradation, objectification, harm—shouldn't be mainstreamed. Maybe we do have a duty to others, not just to our own desire. We need norms more robust than "anything between two consenting adults goes." Her analysis is correct, though missing a necessary component. To say that we need to recover sexual norms leads to an obvious question: Whose norms? And why? What can make certain norms normative? The answer, of course, takes us beyond exploring various moral options. Any analysis of morality quickly becomes a question of teleology. Or, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot, we must know what something is for, before we can know what to do with it. In its bid for unrestricted sexual freedom, late modernity lost any foundation of what sex is and is for. Now, even as the house crumbles, we're busy throwing away every tool needed to build back a foundation. Contrary to everything we're taught, sex is inherently about other people. Biologically, it's about creating children; sociologically, it's about making strong bonds between moms and dads for the sake of those children. Spiritually, it's a reflection of Christ and the Church; metaphysically, it's about the ways we are each embodied beings, created as men and women for, and in relationship with, each other. Of course, it's never popular to suggest any restrictions when it comes to sex, but the alternative is proving to be worse. Emba and others are realizing how sex without restrictions leads to personal and social chaos. She makes a great case. Our job is to take it one step deeper, and to point with our words and our lives to a better way.

"Religion, not gender," the Economist reports, "is the best predictor of views on abortion." The editors continue: Shocked by a draft Supreme Court opinion that would allow states to ban abortion…. some [activists] hope that women enraged by the loss of Roe v Wade will vote en masse for Democrats in November. But, they argue, that hope is misplaced. Whereas the gap between men and women on abortion restrictions is just 6%, religion—combined with race—accounts for a 65% difference. Among both men and women, for example, 92% of atheists favor pro-abortion policies. Likewise, according to Gallup, 75% of those who attend religious services weekly identify as "pro-life." In other words, abortion is not an issue of women against men. It's an issue of worldview. Women are, of course, most affected by issues surrounding pregnancy, but not always the way that we are led to believe. The real question is what is the pre-born? Are they, abortion advocates suggest, just disposable tissue or "lives worth sacrificing?" Or are they, in the words of Scripture, "fearfully and wonderfully made" in the image of God?

After the invasion of Ukraine, what should be done with Russian art? According to Simon Morrison in a recent The Washington Post article, Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine has prompted a global push to disavow all things Russian: Music providers like Sony are suspending their Russian operations. … The Royal Opera House in London scrapped a summer season featuring the Bolshoi Ballet. … The Cardiff Philharmonic in Wales pulled the 19th-century . . . composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky. Some of these measures are warranted. For example, composer Valery Gergiev is an outspoken supporter of Putin, played victory concerts in Ossetia and Syria for Putin, and in 2014 publicly supported the occupation of Crimea. He was fired from his position as chief conductor of the Munich Philharmonic. Other situations are less clear. As Morrison writes, The Montreal Symphony Orchestra just postponed three shows by 20-year-old pianist Alexander Malofeev, despite the fact that he has stated publicly, "Every Russian will feel guilty for decades because of the terrible and bloody decision that none of us could influence and predict." It's both true and unnerving that so many Russians support this rapacious war against their neighbor. Others have been taken in by Putin's relentless campaign of misinformation about Ukraine and its leaders. At the same time, there are those who have done nothing wrong, some who are even leading the internal resistance. Like with economic sanctions, everyday Russians are being punished for the sins of their government. Though war makes such extreme measures necessary, they should never be employed thoughtlessly. Canceling Russian artists is one thing. Canceling Russian art is another. Throughout its history, the country has produced some of the greatest composers, painters, and authors of all time—not to mention dissidents, prophets, and counter-revolutionaries. Leo Tolstoy is a perfect example. A seasoned military veteran who became a devout Christian and pacifist, his work Sevastopol Sketches vividly describes the horror of war in an age prone to glamorize it. Rather than elevate a character or cause, Tolstoy closes with one of his most famous lines: "The hero of my tale, whom I love with all the strength of my soul, whom I have tried to set forth in all his beauty … is the truth." In War and Peace, Tolstoy elaborates on the idea of "greatness." "When it is impossible to stretch the very elastic threads of historical ratiocination any farther," he argues, when actions are clearly contrary to all that humanity calls right or even just, the historians produce a saving conception of greatness... "Greatness," it seems, excludes the standards of right and wrong. Deeply convicted by Christ's teachings, Tolstoy reflected, "There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness, and truth." The fact that Tolstoy's works even survived, despite decades of Soviet censorship, is itself an act of God. Tolstoy's Christian themes were overt, and his contributions both to and from Russian culture undeniable. "Russian school children are introduced to their country's literary canon as early as the fifth grade," writes journalist Tim Brinkhof. Even Putin has listed Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy among his favorite authors. Perhaps his hypocrisy is an open door. Russia's great artists have long served as a kind of national conscience, a reminder of the immutable, God-given truths stamped on the heart of every person. In the words of The Economist, Shunning the country's back catalogue means giving up a guide to the darkness, and out of it. Cancel Dostoyevsky … and you miss peerless insights into nihilism and violence. Blacklist Tchaikovsky—or Shostakovich—and you silence a beauty wrenched from the chokehold of repression. Turn away from Malevich's paintings, and you forgo his urgent vision of a world cracked open. Banishing Tolstoy means losing a timeless prophet of peace. Of course, the Soviet era also has had its share of propagandist art, none of which should be celebrated. The problem with this art is not that it is Russian in origin, but what it was for, what it communicated, and the corrupt motives of its creators. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago, The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. … and even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.

John and Shane consider how to support families who have children wrestling with gender identity. A listener writes in asking for ideas, as some in his own family are navigating gender dysphoria. Then, Shane asks John for a way to think well on manhood and womanhood, noting the natural gender breaks with speakers like Jordan Peterson.

Imagine if giving money in support of a group that protects religious liberty, crafts pro-life legislation, or teaches a biblical view of sexuality or marriage meant that your name and the amount of your contribution would be publicly available. Anyone, including anyone who hoped to intimidate, harass, or "out you" to your employer, would have access to that information. Would you still give if giving exacted a social cost as well as a financial one? That's the situation countless conservative and Christian donors could face. An upstart group called "Unmasking Fidelity" is trying to expose conservative donors to harassment by demanding the nation's largest grant-maker, Fidelity Charitable, publicly reveal contributions to ten key organizations. These include the Family Research Council, Turning Point USA, and Alliance Defending Freedom, which Unmasking Fidelity absurdly calls "white supremacist" and "fascist." The true agenda behind the name-calling is obvious. Some of these organizations have been thorns in the side of progressive policymakers and lawyers who wish to impose their views on all Americans. Alliance Defending Freedom, for example, has been responsible for several key religious freedom victories at the U.S. Supreme Court, including one last year that protected conservative donors in California from having their names and charitable contributions published. In Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta, lawyers with ADF successfully argued against a California law that effectively "doxxed" donors—exposing them to harassment and intimidation. Having failed in court, progressive activists hare now directing their efforts to attacking their opponents' funding, specifically any conservative and Christian donors who use Fidelity Financial to manage their nonprofit contributions. Unmasking Fidelity is demanding five years' worth of receipts for all donations that have gone to ten charities whose views they don't like. If Fidelity agrees to these demands, any major donor who gives to these organizations, or any like them, ought to immediately move their charitable dollars. Thankfully, there are trustworthy homes for this money, including Waterstone, National Christian Foundation, and Signatry. As ADF put it, Unmasking Fidelity "desires to punish [Fidelity] and their donors for supporting principles millions of Americans endorse—religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and sanctity of life." If Fidelity caves to these demands, other financial institutions would likely follow, and an ideological litmus test would be imposed on account holders and institutions. Conservative and Christian groups would be effectively blacklisted by predominant financial players which is precisely what these activists want. From there, they can target other financial institutions and services, such as credit card processing and banking. As ADF concludes, this is an effort to "circumvent the First Amendment" right after the Supreme Court ruled that nonprofit donations are free speech. This is, of course, cancel culture at its worst. If it succeeds, our radioactive political landscape would only become more toxic, and ordinary Americans will be increasingly afraid to contribute to or show public support for causes that would invite harassment or cost them their jobs. Our nation is divided enough, without every citizen who wants to make a charitable donation being effectively put on trial in the court of public opinion. Fidelity Charitable needs to hear from its account holders and the public. As of this publication, more than 30,000 financial advisors, investment professionals, and nonprofit leaders have already signed a letter urging Fidelity Charitable's leadership to reject the demands of progressive activists. Contact Fidelity Charitable directly and urge them to fight for the privacy and freedom of account holders, as well as for the good of our civil society. The email address is [email protected]. And, if you plan on donating to conservative or Christian nonprofits through a donor-advised fund, consider a Christian-based financial firm that is less vulnerable to pressure from activists. ADF has compiled a list of suggested organizations. The stakes are clear. Not only must we protect the future of charitable contribution and organizations doing great work, we must stop this financial squeezing strategy right now, before it gains any momentum.

A bizarre talking point circulating in the wake of the Supreme Court leak in the Dobbs case is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, women who suffer miscarriages could be criminally charged in states that restrict abortion. The rumor apparently stems from a handful of stories involving women who've been charged for the death of their preborn babies after they used drugs or caused a car accident by driving under the influence. These stories have nothing morally or medically in common with miscarriages, which are natural, albeit tragic occurrences. Abortions are needless, deliberate, violent, and dangerous for babies and women. Removing the body of a baby who has died from his mother's womb is nothing like invading a healthy womb to dismember and kill a baby. Propagating the miscarriage myth is nothing less than a ruthless political strategy aimed at keeping women terrified and distracted from the real issues at stake in abortion law. Women deserve better than to be lied to. Christians need to tell the truth loud and clear.

Writing for The Atlantic, Quinta Jurecic argues the politics of rage are "seeping into every corner of life." The New York Times, for example, reported that over 500 health officials had quit their jobs since the pandemic, many citing threats and intimidation. According to an Education Week survey, 60% of school administrators say their employees were threatened with violence over the schools' handling of COVID. In 2021, the FAA logged over 6,000 reports of "unruly passengers," as opposed to just 150 in 2019. To be sure, Jurecic's political bias is obvious—but the problem she describes is real. During the cultural hostility of the first centuries, the Apostles said to let our words "be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." That's not advice, that's instruction. In today's world, we won't be able to avoid conflict, but these stands we take have to be the right ones and how we take them will reflect who we really serve. People, to paraphrase Paul, are not our adversaries. They are our objective.

Last week at our annual Wilberforce Weekend conference, we held a pre-event on Thursday evening to discuss what it means to prepare for a post-Roe future. The presentations were exceptional across the board. Today, I want you to hear from my friend Stephanie Gray Connors. She responded throughout the evening to various slogans used in our culture to promote abortion. Here's one of the short talks she gave in response to the slogan, "legal abortion saves women's lives." Here's Stephanie Gray Connors. Legal abortion saves women's lives. Why is that claim made? It's made to imply that if abortion becomes illegal, it will be unsafe. And the question we want to ask is this, "For who? Abortion will be unsafe for who?" Because abortion is always unsafe, whether legal or illegal for the pre-born child. Another point we want to make is to ask this question: "Even if abortion, when legal, is safer for women than illegal—even if we were to concede that—is it ethical to legalize homicide just to make it safer for those who participate in it?" We could come up with a little parable, and say, imagine you're a nurse in an emergency room and a man comes in with broken, bruised, swollen, bloodied knuckles. And so you begin bandaging his wounds, and you say, "Sir, what happened that caused this to you?" And he replies, "I was beating my wife tonight, and this resulted." Would it make sense for the nurse to say, "You know, we really need to legalize spousal abuse and give men boxing gloves so that when they beat their wives, they don't hurt themselves"? Now, we would never say that. Why? Because we recognize what brought on the infliction of harm to the man was infliction of harm to another. And so the question is "When an abortion occurs, does that abortion inflict harm on the most vulnerable of the human child or human beings—that of the pre-born child?" And if the answer is yes, then we may not legalize it. But when I hear that false claim from abortion supporters—legal abortion saves women's lives—what I'm hearing is a concern for women's lives and on that, I can agree. As a woman, most particularly, I too am concerned about my life and the lives of other women. But my concern is not just that women survive. I want women to thrive. So we have to ask the question, "What makes a woman thrive?" And I would suggest the answer is what makes a woman or anyone thrive is they live to the fullness of who they were created to be. And the ultimate fulfillment biologically, the greatest level of maturity for a woman, is maternity, is having offspring. A woman is called to motherhood. Whether that is lived out through the physical reality of biological mother or the spiritual reality of spiritual motherhood. But the point is all women at the heights of their maturity are called to motherhood. What is abortion? It is a rejection of that. I have worked full time in the pro-life movement for 20 years. I have seen a lot of people on both sides of the debate, and I can tell you the most bitter people I have met over the last two decades are people who have rejected their maternity, and the happiest, most thriving women I have met are those who have embraced their femininity in the form of maternity, whether that is biological mothers or spiritual mothers in the form of nuns I've met who are happier than most people I know. There are two paths ahead of our world today. One says, "This is my body given for you." And the other one says, "This is your body given for me." As we reflect on those two choices, I would suggest the great tragedy of abortion: It's not just that it destroys the body of a baby, but that it destroys the very nature of a woman. Thank you. That was Stephanie Gray Connors, answering a common pro-abortion slogan: Legal abortion saves women's lives. Throughout our preparing-for-a-post-Roe-future event, Stephanie answered a few more questions like that. To receive access to her presentation as well as the other speakers at this very special event, go to breakpoint.org.

Chuck Colson lived a redeemed life. This past weekend we celebrated the redeeming work of Christ in our lives and the lives of those who have come before us. One of the redemption stories we highlighted was Chuck Colson's, and today on the BreakPoint Podcast we share Chuck's story, as told by him, of how Christ saved him not only from something, but to and for many things for the glory of God.

Recently, Stanford Center on Longevity announced a project called the "New Map of Life." "In the United States," the authors write, "as many as half of today's 5-year-olds can expect to live to the age of 100, and this once unattainable milestone may become the norm for newborns by 2050." The problem, the authors admit, is that we don't know what to do with an extra 30 years: The "narrative of an 'aging society' seems to convey only a crisis." Reaching this 100-years-of-life milestone is, as one researcher put it, a "[breathtaking] package of human potential the world has never seen, unprecedented numbers of people with unprecedented capabilities, and significant desire to give back and leave the world better." Scripture agrees, calling old age "a crown of glory." But that's not because of how long it lasts or what is accomplished. It's because there's a "why" behind it all. As Stanford looks for technological and sociological benefits to longer lives, Christians can point to the Source of meaning for all of life, who faced and defeated death. The more time we have to do that, the better.

Recently, we held a public event on the evening before our annual Wilberforce Weekend to talk about how we can prepare to live in a post-Roe world. A very important aspect of that event was learning how we can respond to the common slogans, the common lines that people often throw around in support of abortion. We asked Stephanie Gray Connors, one of the great apologists for the sanctity of life in our present moment to address some of these slogans. One of those slogans was "embryos aren't really people." Here's Stephanie Gray Connors responding. Embryos aren't people. And when we want to respond to that, the first thing we want to do is ask the question, "What our embryos? And what are people?" Let's seek definitions of those two terms. If you look at the word embryo—you actually look it up in the dictionary—it says an animal in the early stages of growth. And I would like to point out as a pro-lifer, I do not believe in protecting all embryos. Dogs have embryos. Cats have embryos. Other species have embryos because the embryo is the animal in the early stage of development. The embryos that I'm interested in protecting are the human embryos that happened to be at the earliest stage of their development. The question is "Are pre-born children human embryos at the very beginning of pregnancy?" And to answer that we have to ask, "Is the pregnant woman human?" Yes. "Is her partner human?" Yes. Then, that means the embryo in the pregnant woman's body must be of the same species. The next question we want to put forward in such a conversation is "Is that embryo that we know is human because the parents are human—is the embryo alive?" And to answer that we ask ourselves, "Is the embryo growing?" And scientifically we know that one cell grows into 2, 4, 8, doubling every time. And so by virtue of the embryo's growth, the embryo must be alive. By virtue of having human parents, the embryo must be human. "What are people?" Well, if you ask an abortion supporter that, they'll say a person is someone who's rational, conscious, and self-aware, and an embryo at the beginning of pregnancy might be human but isn't those things. I have a nine-month-old baby. Yes, she interacts with me to a degree, but let me tell you she does not act rational, conscious, or self-aware very often. I even have to get boogers out of her nose for her. She is entirely incapable of doing many things. "Is she a person?" Yes, because she's human, because she's a member of the human family, and she has the inherent capacity to be rational, conscious, and self-aware like all of us. But due to her age, she can't yet act on that capacity. In the same way if someone is having surgery under anesthetic, in that moment they're not rational, conscious, and self-aware. If you have a conversation or try to with someone under anesthetic, they will not respond back. If you say, "May I kill you?" They will not object. It doesn't mean it's okay to kill them because they have the inherent capacity to be rational, conscious, and self-aware. But due to the circumstances of surgery, they can't act on it. In the same way with a born baby, like a nine-month-old, they have the inherent capacity for this higher brain function. But due to their age, they can't act on it. And the same is true for human embryos. They have the inherent capacities as all of us have. But due to their age, they can't yet act on those capacities. The question then is this: "Our human rights grounded in how old we are, how developed we are, or who we are as members of the human family?" Throughout history, humans have been denied personhood status based on features that don't matter. Women were denied personhood status at one point because of sex, blacks because of skin color, Jews because of ethnicity. And we reject the denial of personhood status of those humans. We reject the denial of personhood status when it comes to pre-born humans because the only difference between them and you and me is their age. And human rights are grounded in being a member of the human family, not how we currently function, how developed we are, or how old we are. Thank you. That was Stephanie Gray Connors, answering a common pro-abortion statement, "embryos aren't people." And at last week's pre-Wilberforce event, preparing for a post-Roe future, Stephanie answered three more slogans, just like that one. To receive access to the entire evening event, Preparing for a Post-Roe World, come to breakpoint.org.

John and Maria consider the ethics surrounding protests, looking specifically at the public outcry over the leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court. The pair also considers how the war in Ukraine is sparking the consequences of the overpopulation myth many have believed. And then to close, John unpacks the reason the Colson Center has selected The Life Redeemed as the theme of this year's Wilberforce Weekend.

A month or so ago, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked to define "woman." She responded, "I'm not a biologist." That was just a week after a biological male won the NCAA women's swimming championship. Gender scholars were quick to support Jackson, pointing to biological anomalies such as people who are born "intersex." But intersex and other "disorders of sexual development" are exceptions. They don't erase the basic biological category of a woman. Ironically, many who remained silent on what a woman is during the NCAA championship have not been silent regarding the potential loss of the so-called "right" to abortion. For example, Vice President Kamala Harris proclaimed in a speech, "How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms," assuming that we should all know perfectly well what a woman is, that the definition has to do with certain biological functions, and that you don't need to be a biologist to know that. Once again, God's design is revealed to be reality.

Today launches our annual Wilberforce Weekend. Ten years ago, Chuck Colson gave what would be his final message, at a Wilberforce Weekend event. His message that day was that the world needed the Church to be the Church. His call that day remains the central purpose of the Wilberforce Weekend. This weekend, we will be looking at salvation and redemption from every possible angle we can, in order to better live a life that is redeemed. Chuck's life was a wonderful redemption story. Today on Breakpoint, I wanted you to hear Chuck Colson, in his own voice and his own words, tell his own redemption story. I was the first person in my family to go to college, and when I got through there, it was time for me to go into the military because the Korean War was raging. So, I became a lieutenant in the Marines and rose very rapidly and won honors in school. I think everything I ever did in my life I was successful. I went to law school nights while I was working as an assistant to a United States senator. At one point, Newsweek wrote about me as the youngest administrative assistant to a United States senator. I think I was 28—ran campaigns, loved it, started a law firm—great success. I got to know Richard Nixon in 1968 when he was elected president and went into his administration as his special counsel. I arrived in his office when I was 38 years old, and my office was immediately next door to his. And you know, you go to the eight o'clock senior staff meetings. There would be 12 of us sitting around the table, and the 12 senior aides would come in with their big portfolios under their arms. Henry Kissinger would always be the last one to arrive. And he would sit down at the end of the table and say, "Mr. President, the decision we are going to make today is going to change the whole future course of human history." I mean every day of the week for five days. That gets pretty exhausting. And we thought we really were doing things that were of great significance. And in many respects, I suppose, looking back, they were. When the campaign was over—and I pretty well ran the campaign for President Nixon in 1972—I decided to go back to my law firm. But I was feeling—instead of jubilant over what was at that point the largest landslide victory in American politics—instead of being jubilant over it, I was feeling kind of down. At 41 years old, I'd been there, I'd done that. There wasn't much else left to do. And I kept thinking to myself, "My grandfather who was an immigrant to this country from Sweden would be so proud to see his grandson in a place like this, but what am I really doing here?" Took a couple of trips abroad, but I came back, and I still had that emptiness. And one day I was back in my law firm, and I went to visit a client whom I had not seen in the four years I'd been in the White House because I refused to see anyone I'd ever practiced law as their lawyer. I was so worried about a conflict of interest. Can you imagine that? But I went back to see one of these men, Tom Phillips, who was the president of the largest corporation in New England. I had been his general counsel. I walked in his office one day, still feeling kind of empty, and I looked at him, and he was a completely different guy. He's a guy like myself who had worked his way up the hard way, self-made man, the CEO of this corporation when he was barely 40 years old. And he was at peace, and he started asking me about my family, and finally, I said to him, "Tom, you've changed since I saw you four years ago." He said, "Yes, I have, Chuck," and then he looked up at the clock, and he didn't look me straight in the eye, but he said, "I have accepted Jesus Christ and committed my life to Him." He looked away as I later found out because he'd never done this with anyone before. I thought about that for the next three months, and I couldn't get it out of my mind. So, I went back to him one evening in August of 1973, and I said, "Tom, you've got to explain this to me," and he said, "Before I do, I want to read you a chapter from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity entitled the great vice, 'The Great Sin.'" I listened to this chapter, and I realized he's writing about me. And I sat there that night in pain listening to that chapter, and I was really moved. He wanted to pray with me, and I said, "No. I have never prayed except in the church." So, he prayed. I left his home that night, and here I was a former Marine captain. And yeah, I was known as the White House hatchet man, the tough guy. And I got into the automobile, and I tried to drive away, but I could not because the tough guy was crying too hard. I couldn't see the road in front of me. I pulled over and sat there. I have no idea for how long, thinking about my life, thinking about "Could there be a God, and if there were, could I know Him?" But that night for the first time in my life, I was sure there was a God, and I was sure He was hearing me. I woke up the next morning figuring I was going to

For years, sociologist Arthur Brooks has been trying to understand the secret to human happiness. Recently in The Atlantic, Brooks argued that at least part of the answer is wanting less, something taught by teachers as ideologically diverse as the Buddha and Thomas Aquinas. "As we age, we shouldn't accumulate more to represent ourselves," writes Brooks, "but rather strip things away to find our true selves—and thus, to find happiness and peace." This is good practical wisdom, but there's more to understand here. While the views of Aquinas and Buddha are superficially similar on this topic, they depart radically on what people are, and what people are for. The Buddha taught us to stop desiring, but Jesus said to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." In other words, it's not about not desiring, but about desiring the right things. The difference between Buddhist asceticism and Aquinas' idea of soul-building is knowing the One who created us with a capacity for happiness in the first place.

A friend of mine has, for decades now, suffered severe back pain. Finally, surgeons took a remarkable step, implanting a device that sends electrical signals to his spinal cord in order to disrupt pain signals traveling to his brain. For the most part, his pain has been dramatically lessened. This was an incredible help for my friend. After all, pain tells us that something is wrong. His condition was never going to change, so the pain served no purpose. The more our knowledge of the human brain increases, the more breakthrough treatments like this, for an increasing variety of mental and physical problems, are possible. Some, such as treating addiction with brain surgery, are more controversial than others. As WORLD News recently reported, a new study at West Virginia University's Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute is utilizing deep brain stimulation in an attempt to counteract addictive cravings. Surgeons insert a tiny, thin wire into the brain's tissue. This allows them to read the parts of the brain that light up when the patient craves a high. It also stimulates other parts of the brain in an attempt to affect, over a time, a "dopamine reset." Combined with additional medication, counseling and lifestyle changes, the treatment seems to have been successful in early trials. More trials are needed before widespread adoption. Even so, as with all technological innovations, any optimism should come with a healthy side dose of caution. Unlike back pain, addiction involves more than just a person's neurology. It involves relationships, lifestyle choices, sense of self-worth, spirituality, and identity. To be clear, addiction is not about less than our brain chemistry, but it is about more. That's one reason certain addictions, such as opioids, are so difficult to fight or overcome. The chemical forces at work can easily outmatch the human brain. Synthetically produced opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil, for example, pack roughly 100 to 10,000 times the potency of morphine. This partially explains why drug overdoses have skyrocketed in recent years, and why, according to some estimates, more than 90% of those addicted to opioids will relapse. Illegal opiates kill, on average, over 100 thousand Americans per year. The societal and personal damage is incalculable. Finally, certain players in the pharmaceutical industry are facing a cultural reckoning, both on screen and in court, for the damage they caused. Given the powerful chemical forces stacked in favor of addiction, it makes sense to enlist science on the side of the human brain. After all, if we can zap our brains out of addictive behavior, why wouldn't we? The answer is that any theory of treatment that treats the physical and medical side of a person, at the expense of the moral, interpersonal, or spiritual side misunderstands the human person. Of course, an increasingly dominant form of materialism does exactly that. Faced with complicated problems of human nature, such as poverty, crime, or addiction, it is tempting to grasp for explanations that rob people of moral agency. Poverty, in this view, is the result of generational difficulties, class discrimination, or racial inequities, but never the choices of the people involved. Crime is caused by poverty, or the lack of access to basic social institutions like education. Addiction is genetic, a result of chemical dependence in the brain, and nothing more. To be clear, empathy, compassion, and care for those in poverty, prison, or addiction are not optional. Christians should know themselves well enough to say, "there but for the grace of God ..." Also, the biblical description of people and sin includes room for both personal and structural factors, both physical and spiritual sides, of each of these issues. What we cannot do is reduce people down, as a naturalistic worldview tends to do, to only their brains. When we treat them as if they aren't moral creatures, with the freedom to act, we don't merely dehumanize them ... we fail to adequately help them. The problem with poverty, especially in the first world, is rarely just a lack of money. This is why a significant percentage of lottery winners end up filing bankruptcy after winning fortunes. People are not reducible to their material selves: their brains, their traits, even their circumstances. Real treatment requires moral commitment and a strong network of spiritual and relational support. Gerod Buckhalter, an early recipient of deep brain stimulation to overcome addiction, understands this better than most. After his surgery over two years ago, Buckhalter committed to counseling, accountability, and other support systems. He told reporters back in February, "When it comes to staying sober, it's just as important as the surgery." If neurostimulation does prove helpful, and I hope it does, it cannot replace a worldview change so that people see themselves as image bearers and moral agents. Neither people nor their addictions are reducible to

John and Shane devote this episode of the Breakpoint podcast to the challenges society will face if Roe v. Wade and a federal protection on abortion is overturned and removed.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been immensely expensive, and not only because of global sanctions and lost military equipment. In fact, the highest price Russia is paying in this war has to do with an increasingly scarce resource: lives. Estimates of Russian casualties in just the first week of the war ranged from 2,000 to 6,000, with thousands more lost since then. Every life lost is tragic, but as British journalist Ed West points out, this is a loss modern Russia simply cannot afford. Russians, like in so many other European nations, simply aren't having enough babies. The country's population is shrinking by more than a hundred thousand people a year, with no clear end in sight. Some parts of the country are simply becoming devoid of people. According to West, about 20,000 Russian villages have been abandoned in recent years, with tens of thousands closely following. This is a factor that could ultimately affect the outcome of the war, West thinks: If Russians turn out to have no stomach for this fight, it will probably be for the simple fact that the country does not have enough men to spare. The majority of those poor young men killed for Russia's honor will be their mother's only son, in many cases their only child…. As it turns out, Russia's problem is not unique. This country, so rich in land but poor in young people, is just one of dozens of nations across an "infertile crescent" from Spain to Singapore, consisting of populations aging so rapidly that their long-term existence is in doubt. West cites a few examples that bring the stats into perspective: "In 2000 Thailand had 7 workers for every retiree; by 2050 that figure will be just 1.7. In Greece, 1,700 schools closed between 2009–2014." In Stoke-on-Trent in England, "40% of bars and clubs have shut in the past twenty years, as the ratio of infants to retirees has gone from 4:1 to 1:2 in a century." And in Paris, "15 schools merged or closed between 2015–2018." According to the United Nations map of world fertility, every continent except Africa is below or nearing the replacement birth rate. This widespread population crash is so steep that West compares it with P.D. James' novel, The Children of Men, a tale about a world devoid of babies. One reason it is difficult to imagine a world threatened by aging and depopulation is that, for decades now, we've been fed a steady diet of alarm about overpopulation. Ever since Paul Ehrlich published his book The Population Bomb in 1968, the idea that the Earth is too crowded has been the zombie myth that just won't die. "The battle to feed humanity is over," Ehrich famously declared. "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." He was wrong, of course, largely because human beings aren't mere eating machines. We have the capacity to innovate and improve methods of food production and living, and that's exactly what happened. To the extent that famines do still occur, they are usually the result of political corruption and war. In fact, we now grow enough food to feed three billion more people than actually exist! So why does the idea of overpopulation and the solution that we must have fewer children persist? How can this belief still hold sway over millions of people in the developed world despite the growing evidence to the contrary? The partial answer is that people in places of influence in governments, academia, and the press have committed themselves to an anti-natal mindset, and struggle to admit that the real problem is too few new humans. The myth of an overpopulated planet sticks despite all evidence because it was long ago accepted as dogma, and almost no one has bothered to challenge it since. The demographic trends at work in Russia and around the world—including in the United States—aren't going to be easy to reverse. One author compared increasing a nation's fertility with pushing water uphill. And in many ways, the gray, shrinking world of our not-so-distant future is an experiment never before tried. The most important strategies to address it—beyond building cultures where children and families are valued again—have probably not been thought of yet. What we can say at this point is that Russia's dwindling supply of young men is just another example of how far popular wisdom can be from the facts. On overpopulation, those facts are in. We're seeing the results before our eyes. And the long-feared future where there are too many mouths to feed has not materialized. Instead, we have a banquet set for billions. But some countries may not be joining us.

The status of modern friendship isn't good. "It's precisely because of the atomized, customized nature of our lives that we rely on our friends so very much," Jennifer Senior recently wrote in The Atlantic. "We are recruiting them into the roles of people who once simply coexisted with us—parents, aunts and uncles, cousins, fellow parishioners, fellow union members, fellow Rotarians." Friendships, however, are in short supply. According to one survey, nearly half of Americans have three or fewer close friends: 12% say they have none. Senior writes, "One could argue that modern life conspires against friendship, even as it requires the bonds of friendship all the more." Complicating this problem is that friendship was never meant to be our only social relationship. People need churches, families, and neighbors, all relationships in steep decline in a culture that prioritizes autonomy over responsibility. The unique beauty of friendship is, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, that it's about something bigger than itself. In fact, all human relationships are. And, Christians who know that have much to offer a world that doesn't.

Last week's leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs case reignited comparisons of abortion restrictions with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. This isn't new, of course, but it is silly and misguided. Atwood's dystopian novel is about a fictional theocratic successor to the United States, the "Republic of Gilead." In Gilead, select women are forced to become concubines for the sole purpose of breeding. Of course, not killing a child is not the same thing as forcing a woman to bear a child, especially in a culture like ours bent on rejecting sexual morality. In fact, the closest thing to Gilead in our world is commercial surrogacy, particularly those nations where women are kept in surrogacy "farms" and barely paid to remain pregnant in order to bear children for wealthy Westerners, especially same-sex couples. Advocates of so-called "universal parentage" laws are bringing that to America, not pro-lifers. Despite the promises, abortion doesn't bring freedom to women, only a false promise. As Frederica Mathewes-Green and others have observed, abortion untethers men from their responsibilities, and women are on the receiving end of that bad deal. Abortion promises women freedom, but instead delivers abandonment. Let's pray abortion becomes as unthinkable today as those handmade outfits are.