Breakpoint

Most Christians consider Easter to be a sacred and joyous celebration of Christ's resurrection. But what about the claim that Easter and its accompanying traditions originated from a pagan spring celebration? In his treatise On the Reckoning of Time, eighth-century English monk The Venerable Bede proposed that the word Easter comes from the name of a pagan goddess: "Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated 'Paschal month', and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month." Modern pagans latched onto this idea, and further associated Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring and fertility, with Ostara, a Germanic goddess of spring. There are multiple problems with this theory, however, the Venerable Bede notwithstanding. For centuries, the Church fought to turn people from paganism. Therefore, it is unlikely that one of the most important Christian holidays would be named after a pagan goddess. More importantly, there is no evidence, aside from Bede, of a goddess named Eostre, nor is there evidence for a Germanic goddess named Ostara. The name Easter is only used in English, and its cognate Ostern in German. Everywhere else, even in Germanic languages such as Dutch, Norwegian, or Swedish, the word is derived from Pascha or Passover. And, since Resurrection Day was celebrated for hundreds of years before the Anglo-Saxons or Germans were converted, it is unconvincing that its name points to a pagan origin of the holiday. More likely, Bede was mistaken, either following a folk etymology or simply guessing. In fact, where the day's name does originate is a bit more complicated. New converts, after receiving intensive instruction, were baptized on Easter. Easter Sunday was known as Dominica in albis, or "the Sunday in white," after the white robes worn by the catechumens. It may be that albis was misunderstood to be the plural of alba, or dawn, which was then translated into Old High German as eostarum. The words Easter and Ostern most likely are derived from that. Another common argument is that Easter traditions such as rabbits and decorating eggs were pagan fertility symbols. Some modern pagans even claim, without evidence, that the worship of Ostara involved these very things. However, the connection of these items to Easter is much less elaborate and far more recent than any mythical pagan past. During the Holy Week fast preceding Easter, Christians were prohibited from eating eggs. The chickens kept laying, however. Eggs laid during Holy Week were considered Holy Eggs. The practice of decorating them began in the thirteenth century, many centuries after Europe turned from paganism. The egg was seen as a symbol of the resurrection, with Christ bursting from the tomb in the same way the chick broke free from the egg. As for rabbits, the timing of their association with Easter also eliminates the possibility that they are a holdover from pagan ideas. During the Middle Ages, rabbits were seen as innocent, good, and harmless, and as such were sometimes used as a symbol of Christ. However, they were not associated with Easter until the 17th century. Another version of the "Easter has roots in paganism" idea associates the celebration of the resurrection with the ancient Sumerian myth of Tammuz and Ishtar. This myth, which is an explanation of the annual cycle of death in winter, tells of Tammuz and Ishtar spending half a year in the underworld, before a new birth when they are released for six months each spring. The myth bears little resemblance to resurrection story, especially the three days Jesus spent in the tomb and his once-and-for-all resurrection from the dead. Even so, this pagan story and others like it may, in fact, be connected to Christianity, just not in the way we normally think. In fact, we may have it the wrong way around. As C. S. Lewis described in Mere Christianity: And what did God do? …. He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Lewis believed that these myths were hints that God gave to the pagan world of the person and work of Christ. In other words, the argument that myths are the source of the story of the Resurrection has it exactly backwards. The Resurrection actually happened, and is the Reality to which these myths have always pointed. And because the Resurrection actually happened, it is certainly worthy of celebrationg... with Hallelujahs, raised glasses, and lots of joy.

Dr. Christopher Yuan led our Time of Guided Prayer last week. He shared how the prayers of his parents, and hundreds of other believers, were used to lead him to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. For more information on our Time of Guided Prayer please visit: www.breakpoint.org/praywithme

Recently, Twitter banned Christian satire site The Babylon Bee from their platform. Their offending tweet "awarded" Admiral Rachel Levine, the nation's first transgender four-star admiral, with their satirical "Man of the Year Award." Clearly, big tech censorship is a problem. What should Christians do? Christians, even in comedy, will have to continue to speak truths that people will not always want to hear … It's too easy to look away, ignore controversy, and just focus on what are often called primary issues. But truths about identity and sexuality are primary issues because they deal with the deepest questions of worldview: Who are we? And where does our design come from? Is humanity's fundamental problem society's lack of acceptance, or the wrongdoing we are each guilty of? Is the solution self-expression or self-surrender? Wherever and however we can, Christians should do things differently, especially in the digital world. But we should never give in to the culture's biggest demand: to stay silent on matters that matter the most.

Just a small sampling of recent headlines reveals what a disorienting cultural moment this is: Man wins a women's swimming championship, Supreme Court nominee refuses to define the word woman, Biden administration endorses gender reassignment surgery for minors. Back in 2020, theologian and historian Dr. Carl Trueman provided a full account of how something that was unthinkable a generation ago became unquestionable today. The dramatic shifts in how we think about gender and sexuality are among the fruits (not roots) of a much deeper shift in how we think about the human person. Trueman's book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self described the origin story of what has been called "the cultural identity crisis." Centuries ago, thinkers, writers, and activists began to rethink, redefine, and over-sexualize the concept of self. By describing this process, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self felt like a long-overdue answer key for our cultural moment. Weighing in at over 400 pages, it is the definitive account of the thinkers, ideas, expressions, and consequences of the sexual revolution. Thankfully, Dr. Trueman also heard the many pleas for a less academic approach to these essential concepts, one that works out the same essential analysis but for those Christians dealing with the everyday chaos of the culture he so aptly describes. The new and much slimmer version is called Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. In it, Trueman tells the story of the development and propagation of ideas that sparked a revolution in how Western people think about themselves and others. Eventually, these ideas transformed how we think about sex and the human body, about social institutions like the family and the role of the state, and about meaning, purpose, and fulfillment. Along the way, Trueman introduces the thinkers whose ideas sparked this revolution: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Simone de Beauvoir, Wilhelm Reich, Germaine Greer, and others. Trueman connects how these thinkers built on one another's ideas, and ultimately shaped the assumptions that now influence most Western people, even those who have never read these authors. No assumption has been more influential than the idea that discovering and expressing our authentic, inner selves is the goal of life. Though it is as widely held today as any other belief in our modern world, it is not an assumption that most humans for most of history could have shared. A whole collection of forces has made this idea, which Trueman identifies as "expressive individualism," thinkable. Now, it is the ideological foundation for so much of modern Western culture. Another assumption that emerges in Trueman's account is the idea that there is no such thing as a fixed human nature. According to this assumption, our faculties as a species, our moral ideals, and even our gendered bodies are like "playdough," raw material to be molded according to our shifting desires and the whims of activists. Again, it is not hard to see where this leads. Strange New World is more than a Reader's Digest version of Rise and Triumph. It is a book to be carefully studied, especially by Christians committed to engaging this cultural moment with the truth and love of Christ. Increasingly, the battles over gender, sexuality, and selfhood are being fought in more areas of our lives: not just across political aisles or in courtrooms, but across dinner tables, classrooms, and social media feeds. Sometimes, those closest to us have radically different views of what human flourishing looks like, and these relationships can quickly become vulnerable, even volatile. This month, the Colson Center is offering an opportunity for you to join us in studying the essential ideas in Carl Trueman's new book Strange New World. For a gift of any amount, we will send you a copy of the book, a study guide Dr. Trueman has prepared to go along with the book, and a four-lesson digital course with Dr. Trueman and Colson Center theologian-in-residence Dr. Tim Padgett. Come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary to give, and to be better equipped to understand the increasingly strange headlines and issues of our moment.

The White House issued a series of documents for the "International Transgender Day of Visibility." Even more than revealing a new progressive "baseline" when it comes to politics and gender, these documents foreshadow new and real threats to religious freedom. For example, a statement from the Office of Population Affairs claimed that so-called gender-affirming treatment "improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender-diverse children and adolescents." In this case, however, gender "affirming" means to encourage grade-school children to question their gender and, once they do, provide them with puberty blockers and hormone therapy to help them reject their bodies. In some cases, the document says, adolescents should even have access to so-called "gender-affirming surgery," a procedure which removes or destroys perfectly healthy body parts and is irreversible. In recent months, states such as Texas and Florida have taken legislative steps to prevent children from being subjected to such mental and physical harm. However, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), an entity of the Department of Health and Human Services, issued a release proclaiming that "gender-affirming care" is neither "child maltreatment nor malpractice." Around the same time, the Department of Justice sent a letter to all state attorneys general, saying that opposing HHS guidance is discrimination, is essentially an attack against "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, nonbinary, or otherwise gender-nonconforming" people, and that such actions "may be unconstitutional." The Department of Justice! To top it all off, President Joe Biden issued a video in which he spoke specifically to parents, insisting that "affirming [their] child's identity is one of the most powerful things [they] can do to keep them safe and healthy." In it, he not only jumped way past the line of state authority into parental authority, but he appealed to biblical language, misguidedly conflating the image of God with the confusion of gender dysphoria. It's not just that the government's claims fail to match reality, or that their talking points are crafted from data with flawed research methodology, or even that their appeals to "settled science" are clearly premature. Transgender ideology falsely promises hope and instead brings harm to people who bear God's image. When government forces and federal departments are co-opted to advance this ideology, religious freedom is placed in a precarious and fragile position. Years ago, during the Obama administration, Chuck Colson began to notice how then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials began to use the language of "freedom to worship" instead of "freedom of religion." As he said at the time, freedom to worship is a narrowing of religious freedom, away from public expression toward only private conviction. It is a major loss if religious freedom no longer includes the right to order one's life around deeply held religious beliefs, but only protects the right to believe in one's own heart, head, home, and house of worship. These recent proclamations from the Biden administration assume that flawed understanding of religious conviction, while also establishing a new baseline for political enforcement of the sexual revolution. The statements and letters issued frame all opposition to the state's view of sexual orientation and gender identity as intent, not only to discriminate, but to harm. Procedurally, this is how federal departments like Health and Human Services now operate. Each new administration will spend a year and half dismantling the rules and regulations of the previous one, while planning ways to implement their new rules in ways that make them difficult to dismantle. The Obama administration did this, the Trump administration did this, and now the Biden administration is doing it. These recent documents, proclamations, and videos indicate that the rules coming out of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and others will be the most extreme yet. Christians in this culture moment cannot abandon truths about the human person, sexuality, and religious freedom whenever a new administration roars. With clarity and courage, we must teach our kids, build our institutions, and take all necessary stands based on what is true about men and women, sex, marriage, and freedom. Connecting what is eternally true to the challenges of the cultural moment is what the Colson Fellows program is all about. In May, over 700 leaders—of churches, homes, institutions, businesses, and communities—will be commissioned, having studied worldview and theology, having wrestled with the challenges of the cultural moment, and having planned how to implement what they've learned as Christians of influence. There are cohorts in over 60 cities and 28 churches across America, as well as online cohorts for others. Visit www.colsonfellows.org for more information.

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

John and Maria visit on a number of laws that are anticipating a gutting of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health that is before the Supreme Court. Maria then explains a new law in Washington State to shroud abuses in transgender prisons from the public. To close, John explains how unique it is that archeological findings continue to support the historical occurrences in the Bible. John points out that no other worldview that highlights a spiritual explanation for the world and humanity has as much archeological findings that support the guiding texts of the faith systems.

Recently Kristen Waggoner, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, was invited to join a panel at Yale Law School. Ironically, during her talk about free speech, a mob of Yale students—future lawyers, mind you—tried to shut down the conversation, yelling obscenities and pounding on the classroom walls, all because ADF defends the reality of sexual difference. Kristen wrote about the volatile situation at WORLD Opinions. An anonymous student gave her a note before the event with the words "keep the faith." She did. The best argument for free speech is speaking freely and truthfully, with respect for those who disagree. Shouting down opponents is the opposite. Kristen showed how important free speech really is by her boldness and calm in the face of a group temper tantrum. Her demeanor sent the message even louder than her words, and also represented Jesus before the Sanhedrin who also offered a quiet and confident disposition that spoke louder than words.

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of high school football coach Joe Kennedy, who was fired from a Washington state public school for praying on the football field after games. He never forced anyone to join him, though many students and others often did, and he even agreed to pray silently by himself after the school raised concerns. That wasn't enough for school officials who demanded that if he insisted on closing his eyes in silent prayer, he had to do it somewhere out of sight. Coach Kennedy recognized their demands as a violation of his right to free religious expression. He is represented by First Liberty Institute. Coach Kennedy didn't set out to be a culture warrior or religiusreligious freedom icon. Like Jack Phillips and fellow Washingtonian Barronelle Stutzman, Kennedy has been objectified and caricatured. Political movements do this to people whose stories are valuable for political purposes. But these are more than faces on T-shirts. They are real people who have made real sacrifices. Barronelle Stutzman lost her flower shop. Jack Phillips has been harassed for going on ten years now. Coach Kennedy just wanted to coach football. How the rest of us should respond is by taking any opportunity we can to pray for him and his family. His story is one of many verifications that serious violations of religious freedom are actually happening. Some of these violations are clearly motivated by religious animus. For example, in Finland, a former parliamentarian was charged with criminally inciting hatred against gay people for quoting the Book of Romans to explain her views on sexuality. Thankfully, last week a Finnish Court ruled strongly in favor of both logic and free expression, protecting this official's speech. Other times, religious liberty violations are more symptoms of bureaucratic inertia or ignorance than of animus. The first few letters that Coach Kennedy's school sent asking him to stop praying aren't the rantings of radical atheists. In fact, the officials said they knew Coach Kennedy was "well-intentioned," and that he had never forced any students to participate in his prayer. Still, they asked him to stop, citing their fear that they'd be sued for a First Amendment violation. They didn't hate Coach Kennedy. They just didn't understand the First Amendment. They really didn't understand the First Amendment, in fact, which led to increasingly strange demands. In fact, religious organizations such as First Liberty Institute, say that's not uncommon. The majority of religious freedom violations are resolved quickly and quietly by sending a letter to an offending school or company, simply informing them of the law and its protections. But whenever ignorance of the law mixes with human stubbornness or, even worse, an animus toward Christianity and traditional Christian morality, institutions become increasingly intolerant of an individual's religious freedom. Even if it's still illegal, which it is, it becomes socially and politically easier. The state of Washington seems to be case-in-point. Coach Kennedy's clarity and courage gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to provide the clarity on religious freedom desperately needed in public schools and other institutions. All Christians need that kind of clarity. Too many have believed a sort of "inevitability" narrative, about the restriction of religious freedom advanced by bureaucratic demands. In fact, religious freedom is affirmed by the Supreme Court more often than not. And offending institutions back down more often than you think. Christians absolutely can stand on a football field and close our eyes in prayer, even if other people can see us. Christian educators can cite the Bible as a historical record or a masterclass in philosophy. Christian office workers can place a Bible on their desks. Christian school kids can host Bible studies after school. That's why I'm grateful for organizations that defend these rights and for organizations like Gateways to Better Education who teach Christian educators that they have those rights. The cartoon version of what's going on is that Christians like Coach Kennedy throw a temper tantrum in order to force religion on others. The real story is that religious freedom advances both Gospel witness and the public good, is a first freedom among many others, and is defensible, even as public sentiment against Christianity grows more hostile. We must not believe that unchecked and increased religious censorship is inevitable. It isn't, and it never should be.

Writing in Vox news, Luke Winkie describes a new and growing trend for health-conscious Americans: "microdosing." It consists of introducing small amounts of marijuana, magic mushrooms, ketamine, or other formerly illicit substances into a daily routine. The goal is to stay on top of mental health issues. "What the government once considered contraband is being claimed by wellness culture, one tiny dose at a time," Winkie writes; "After all, the chaos of the last few years has left so many Americans with a singular priority: to be calmer and happier, by any means possible." While the health benefits of microdosing are inconclusive at best , what is becoming clear is how we've confused coping with curing. That should be a warning sign. A world that treats every problem as a medical one misses the point. A population that increasingly needs dubious chemicals just to feel "okay" is one that's not OK. One early adopter put it this way: "I felt a disconnect from my logical, ever-critical brain to my soul." That feeling is real, even God-given. The answer she needs is one the Church is tasked with providing.

John and Shane field a question on Matthew Sleeth's book Hope Always. They also discuss a question about working in a public school, and John helps a dad who is challenged by the world of online dating.

Reality TV has earned a reputation of being crazy … and Netflix's dating show Love Is Blind is no exception. Over the course of 10 days, contestants on Love Is Blind talk, mingle, and then decide whether or not to get engaged—all without seeing each other first. When Season 2 wrapped up in March, a common question was whether the "love is blind" angle delivered more substance than other shows, like The Bachelor. The consensus was don't get your hopes up. As Vox news' Alex Abad-Santos put it, "This season had it all: gaslighting, lying, cutting, sarcasm. … [The producers] seemingly pulled no punches." Reality TV has long made a consumer product of romance, but the fact that people tried to make a show with this angle says something. Most people want more than just sexual chemistry or even infatuation. Real love isn't blind—it sees truly both glories and flaws, and still seeks the other's well-being regardless. That reality hasn't changed—even if we try to use the worst possible medium to show it.

New gruesome photos of babies aborted late-term in Washington, D.C, are a reminder of what abortion really is. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is BreakPoint. Last week, D.C. police collected the bodies of five babies that were reportedly aborted late-term. A pro-life activist claims the bodies were given to her by a "whistleblower" from an abortion clinic. The clinic conducts abortions until week 27, but experts contacted by Live Action News believe that one of the babies looks to be between 28 and 32 weeks. I've seen the photos. They are absolutely horrific. The older baby is simply indistinguishable from a newborn. With the Supreme Court soon to announce a decision in the Dobbs case, the abortion industry continues to dig in its heels. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is about the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that limits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The fact that such a law would be fought, especially at the highest legal levels, is evidence that America's abortion laws are not where people, science, and the rest of the world are when it comes to abortion. Of course, Christians have additional, sacred reasons for opposing abortion at any age in any circumstance. Even so, despite the alarmism presented in the media and from abortion advocates about any abortion restriction, Americans don't want late-term abortions. A Wall Street Journal poll published last week found that a majority, although slim by 5%, were against abortion after 15 weeks. Another poll conducted last year by Associated Press and the NORC Center at the University of Chicago found that 65% of Americans don't want abortion after the first trimester, ending after week 12 or 13. Additional research shows that millennials lean more pro-life than Gen X. A major reason public opinion continues to trend toward more abortion restrictions instead of less is due to what we have learned from both natural and social science. Abortion is not the elimination of unformed masses but the killing of babies who, at 15 weeks, are developing eyebrows and eyelashes and can thumb suck and yawn. A survey conducted by pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List found that when people know the science they are more uncomfortable with abortions past 15 weeks. For example, 55% of survey takers informed that at 15 weeks a pre-born baby feels pain were "more likely" in support of a 15-week limit. And 53% indicated "more likely" support for a 15-week limit when informed that "by 15 weeks an unborn child has a beating heart, can move around in the womb, can close his or her fingers, can start to make sucking motions and hiccup, and senses stimulation from outside the womb." Also, 52% responded in "more likely" favor of a 15-week restriction when they learned that "abortion carries signific physical and psychological risks to the mother, and these risks increase with late abortions." This science appears to be convincing much of the rest of the world to restrict abortions closer to the first trimester. Even Chief Justice John Roberts in his exchange with abortion industry counsel during discussion on the Dobbs case noted that, except for China and North Korea, the U.S. seems to be out of step globally regarding the "viability standard." Viability outside of the womb is often thought now to begin at 24 weeks, and some high-tech NICUs' have made is as potentially low as 22 weeks of gestation. Sharing a standard with two of the nations known least for respecting life is not commendable. In fact, a report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute finds that the U.S. is only 1 of 7 nations that allow voluntary abortion past 20 weeks. As Patrick Kelly of the Knights of Columbus wrote in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago, up to 4,000 pregnancy resource centers are available for expectant mothers in the United States. Despite the criticisms of the abortion industry, Charlotte Lozier Institute in its research of 2,700 centers found that 25% of their paid staff were medically trained. The institute has shared that "consistently high client satisfaction rates reported to pregnancy centers reflect that women, men, and youth who visit centers feel respected, valued, and well cared for." When we advocate for life, we are not advocating for just the life of the baby but also for the life of the parents. They and the baby are both made in the image of God. If you are interested in "Preparing for a Post-Roe Future," consider attending a special evening event on Thursday, May 12, in Orlando, Florida, before our annual Wilberforce Weekend. This event features Tim Tebow, Stephanie Gray Connors of Love Unleashes Life, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life. Join us to learn more about advocating for the pre-born, and continuing the struggle to abortion unthinkable.

At the end of March, the Associates for Biblical Research published a curse. While that may seem a strange thing to do, it wasn't their curse. The curse was written in Hebrew, inscribed on a small leaden amulet (or tablet). It was found in 2019 among materials previously excavated on Israel's Mt. Ebal. It's a short curse, just 40 letters in Hebrew and only 23 words when translated to English: "Cursed, cursed, cursed—cursed by the God YHW. You will die cursed. Cursed you will surely die. Cursed by YHW—cursed, cursed, cursed." As recorded near the end of Deuteronomy, God called the newly freed Israelites to assemble on Mt. Ebal and to declare there, to God and to one another, the promises of obedience and disobedience. Put another way, they were to announce the blessings and curses that came with their role as God's people. So, what we have in the discovery of this amulet is either a remarkable coincidence—a written curse left at the very location the Bible associates with curses—or yet another confirmation of something the Bible says happened. Even better, either of these options is the least important aspect of what makes this discovery interesting. The more important aspect is potentially earth-shattering for biblical studies. According to a professor at the University of Haifa, this discovery is "the earliest Hebrew inscription found so far." Scholars investigating the find place the date of the inscription to around 3,200 years ago. That puts it, biblically speaking, in the time of the Judges. The common perception among biblical scholars, however, has been that the bulk of the Bible wasn't written when it says it was. It's long been assumed that the early, and supposedly primitive, Israelites simply lacked the skill to come up with the written grandeur of books like Genesis and Deuteronomy. This tiny curse reveals that the right people at the right time in the right place were writing about God just as the Bible describes. Despite the confidence of the scholarly consensus, this provides proof of the Israelites' literary ability, hundreds of years before skeptics thought it possible. And this kind of thing keeps happening. Four years ago, a then-recent discovery of an exploding meteor wiping out a series of cities at the south end of the Dead Sea corresponded to about the time the Bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah met their fiery fate. Three years ago, an unearthed signet-seal affirmed the identity of someone mentioned in the biblical text. Two years ago, new DNA studies confirmed aspects of the biblical description of the Philistines' origin. How many times will the Bible have to be proved right before we accept it as true? There's a scene in the 1990 Shakespeare spoof Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead where Gary Oldman's character starts flipping a coin. Again and again and again, it comes up heads, over 70 times in a row! At first, he finds it strange, even amusing. As heads keep coming up, his partner in crime, played by Tim Roth, starts contriving explanations as to why the laws of probability have been suspended. They must, he concludes, be encountering a moment where the ordinary rules just don't apply. The repeated pattern of extraordinary events meant that something special was going on. This is what the Bible claims for itself. The Bible doesn't claim to be true in some watered-down "spiritual" sense. It claims to be the true record of God's intervention into human affairs. It does not describe a faraway fairy world built on wishes and dreams, but this world, the real one. It is here that Lazarus and Jesus were truly dead but raised to life again. It is in this world that actual Israelites escaped from actual slavery in Egypt. If what Scripture claims to have happened didn't, then we may as well "eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Its reality confirms its truth. As the Apostle Peter claimed, Christianity is not rooted in "cleverly devised myths," but in the real account of actions in the real world. Bits of lead and clay in the dirt will never ultimately prove the Bible's claims to the satisfaction of all skeptics, but day after day, more evidence emerges that its claims should be taken seriously by not only archeologists and historians, but all of us. In Holy Scripture, something special is indeed going on.

A quote attributed to Greek tragedian Aeschylus says that, "In war, truth is the first casualty." This is a particular relevant point when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As Jon Greenberg with PolitiFact reports, in Russia "it is now a crime—punishable by up to 15 years in prison—to publish 'fake' information about the all-out attack on Ukraine. The government has blocked Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and news websites aimed at Russians, such as Latvia-based Meduza. It is a crime for the average citizen to publicly post information that contradicts the government line." The government line is that Russian forces are liberators not aggressors. According to Greenberg , Russians who want the truth have to be adaptable, and take big risks in order to join small internet groups or use virtual private networks, called VPNs. They are only being lied to otherwise. Truth matters for everyone. Everyday Russians, like the Ukrainians, are also victims of an autocratic regime, though in a less direct way. They deserve our prayers—every bit as much as this war deserves our opposition.

If a preborn baby isn't a human person with rights, when does it become one? Some abortion advocates have drawn that line at the second trimester, while very few others point to fetal heartbeat or detectable brain activity. Harder-line activists reject any abortion restrictions and insist it's okay to kill a baby at any point right up until or even during birth. Planned Parenthood's official stance is still to the point of viability, when the baby's experience of pain during abortion is excruciating. What has never been clear is why abortion supporters would draw the line at birth. At least in medical, scientific, and philosophical terms, passing through the birth canal doesn't change anything about a child. If a tiny human is considered a disposable inconvenience inside its mother, why would six inches and twenty minutes turn them into a person with rights? This is why some, like Princeton ethicist Peter Singer, propose that parents should be allowed to kill children well after birth, especially if they are born with a disability such as Down Syndrome. Until now, this horrifying consistency of pro-abortion logic hasn't made it into law. But as a Supreme Court decision looms in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, legislatures in progressive states are feverishly taking steps to safeguard so-called abortion "rights" in a potential post-Roe world. In at least one case, lawmakers finally followed the logic of abortion to its awful conclusion, and left room for post-birth infanticide. Maryland Senate Bill 669 would amend the state's fetal murder-manslaughter statute to prevent "any form of investigation or penalty" for a person "experiencing a miscarriage, perinatal death related to a failure to act, or stillbirth." Notice that this is not in the context of a botched abortion. Abortionists have already been caught more than a few times in the past allowing babies born alive after abortions to die. This law would prohibit investigations in any case where a baby died after birth as a result of neglect. Making matters worse, the term "perinatal" (which just means "newborn") is not clearly defined. Typically, as Wesley J. Smith points out at National Review, perinatal refers to baby's first month after birth, so this bill "effectively decriminalizes death by neglect for the first 28 days of life." "In other words," explained the American Center for Law and Justice, "a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death." Even worse, the Maryland bill authorizes those who are investigated for fatally neglecting an infant to sue law enforcement for civil damages. And, since even investigations are not allowed, if this bill became law, any Maryland residents could allow any newborn child to die without facing questions or consequences. Such deadly logic won't stop at passive infanticide, either. "Based on the current advocacy trajectory," writes Wesley J. Smith, "such proposals will eventually extend to permitting active infanticide, which is already promoted as legitimate morally by many in mainstream bioethics, and which currently is permitted in the Netherlands upon terminally ill babies and those born with serious disabilities." If this bill passes, and other states attempting to sure up abortion rights follow, Americans would be openly participating in a practice that has been widely condemned in the West since the Christianization of the Roman Empire. We should all pray this measure doesn't pass, and every citizen in Maryland of should make sure state lawmakers know what you think about it. The rest of us should take this as a wake-up call, the first skirmish in the post-Roe fight for the sanctity of life. The Supreme Court will not end abortion. Instead, a new battle, fought state by state and life by life, will be before us. This Maryland bill is just a taste of how high the stakes in that fight will be.

John Stonestreet explains the design of religious freedom, highlighting how it is the first freedom. John explains how this freedom is under attack in this cultural moment, and how Christians can respond to the increasing pressure to relinquish this right.

Thirteen years ago, satire news site The Onion aired a fake sports talk show announcing that March Madness would now allow four-thousand college basketball teams to compete. "All schools deserve to compete," said the fake announcers: "This will take March Madness all the way into June!" During this year's March Madness tournament, the NCAA, the governing body of collegiate athletics, has been running not-fake commercials openly patting themselves on the back for all the opportunities created for women. One ad celebrated the NCAA's embrace of Title IX, which gave female athletes the opportunity to compete in female-only sports leagues, along with greater access to scholarships and education. The self-congratulations rings a bit hollow since, just two weeks ago, the NCAA awarded a women's swimming championship to a man. The NCAA faces a real choice: Either acknowledge the real, consequential differences between men and women and why they are inherently relevant to physical competition, or become the organizing body that takes opportunities from women. If they choose the latter, and become a satire of themselves, the women will be the ones who suffer.

Fifty years ago last week, a government report lived up to the old adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. On March 27, 1972, a document known to history as the "Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth and the American Future," called for zero population growth in America as a means to save the world. While we have no reason to doubt that those behind the document had "good intentions," history has proven this paper a high mark of state-sponsored hubris. Not only did its proposed solutions make things worse instead of better, but it set a dark precedent for terrible crimes against humanity. To "stabilize" America's population, the paper called for increased regulation of immigration and, most notably given the Roe v. Wade decision just 10 months later, the legalization of and even encouraging of abortion. Still, as terrible as the consequences of the Rockefeller Commission report have been, they were the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the value and nature of human beings. It assumed, as many do today, that human beings are a net loss to the global future, that, on the whole, we take more than we give to the world. In the mid- to late 20th century, many elites grew concerned about the growing world population. Though it had remained in the hundreds of millions for thousands of years, the human population, with the rise of new technologies and social structures, topped a billion for the first time around 1800. Another billion was added by the early 1900s. By the time this report was written, the human population was approaching 4 billion. Because the commission assumed that every new person meant another mouth to feed from a limited supply of global food, they also assumed that more people posed a problem that must be mitigated. The Rockefeller Commission didn't so much find a solution to a real problem, as it created a solution to an already-assumed problem. To the chagrin of its devoted supporters even today, the Commission's recommendations were not as widely implemented as many would have liked. What does remain from the report, however, is a mindset that validated both abortion and the assumption of overpopulation, even after the predictions of global disaster turned out to be as fictional as a summer blockbuster. In fact, since the report's catastrophic predictions, the world population has more than doubled, from 3.8 billion people in 1972 to an estimated 7.9 billion today. Yet, instead of mass starvations and increased conflicts over resources, crop yields have increased dramatically, more than keeping pace with the mouths to feed. Humans simply didn't prove to be the virus so many thought they were. Rather, they were proved to be creators of new resources and innovative solutions, which makes sense if they really were made to be co-creators by the One who created all things. Created to tend the Garden of this world, humans are not merely consumers. We are producers, tasked with cultivating what was made into more than it presently is. It'd be nice if we could simply look back and chuckle at the folly of the ivory tower crowd and their bad ideas. But, as we often say, ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims. The sort of thinking expressed in the Rockefeller Report had very real victims— tens of millions, in fact. In the last 50 years, over 60 million Americans have been killed through abortion. In China, where the myth of the population bomb led to the horrific one child policy, some 300 million babies were slaughtered, many against the will of their mothers. Instead of saving the planet, these vain ideas of population control have left the nations of the world with a birth dearth. Russia, China, and Japan are notably struggling to maintain their numbers even as their older population phases out of the workforce. We are fast approaching another 50th anniversary, which I hope and pray will be an empty one. Next January is the 50-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the miscarriage of justice that usurped state laws across the country and legally grounded abortion's malign presence in America. With the Dobbs case being decided in a matter of weeks in the U.S. Supreme Court, next January's anniversary could arrive with Roe a dead letter. To prepare for the next phase of fighting this evil mindset and practice that plagues our nation, the Colson Center is hosting an event on Thursday evening, May 12, in Orlando, Florida. "Preparing for a Post-Roe Future" will be held the evening before our annual Wilberforce Weekend Conference and will feature Tim Tebow, Stephanie Gray Connors of Love Unleashes Life, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life. Please join us as we work to bring better ideas to the world around us.

John and Maria discuss the challenge in culture to toxic masculinity. This week the nation reacted to displays by Will Smith and Volodymyr Zelensky. John and Maria consider a recent commentary by comedian Bill Maher who challenges the view we have of masculinity and how we value it. In this vein, Maria asks John to comment on a recent HHS announcement to push so-called "gender affirming" surgeries on minors. John references a commentary by Maria on BreakPoint that discusses the role of women, and how the church has a unique place to affirm God's design. Maria then asks John to comment on a recent BreakPoint where John discussed "The Declaration on a New American Future." The declaration opposes a movement in the 1970s under the banner of the Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth that looked at abortion as population management. -- Recommendations -- 30 Days of Prayer>> Yuval Levin on Honestly with Bari Weiss>> -- In-Show Mentions -- Segment 1: Will Smith apologizes for slapping Chris Rock at the Oscars, calling it "unacceptable and inexcusable" Will Smith has apologized for slapping comedian Chris Rock in the face during the Oscars on Sunday. Smith said his "behavior at last night's Academy Awards was unacceptable and inexcusable" in a Monday night Instagram post. CBS News>> ZELENSKY PROVES A LITTLE MASCULINITY IS GOOD & SEXY - ACCORDING TO BILL MAHER Bill Maher laced into liberals who attack men for having supposed "toxic masculinity." The "Real Time with Bill Maher" host used Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and men taking up arms to defend Ukraine from the Russian invasion as examples of how masculinity can be anything but toxic. The Blaze>> NCAA Kicks-off March Madness Highlighting Title IX at 50th Finals The NCAA began its Title IX at 50 celebration during the 2022 NCAA Convention in Indianapolis. The celebration commemorates the anniversary of the landmark federal law signed in 1972 that prohibits gender discrimination in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. NCAA>> What are Women For? Our culture has long struggled with the realities of sexual difference, or "gender." While first- and second-wave feminism generally asserted that women were equal in value to men, transgenderism now asserts that women are interchangeable with men. Notice the underlying assumption: in order for men and women to have equal value, they have to be the same thing. BreakPoint>> Segment 2: The "Declaration on a New American Future" Challenges Abortion as a "Population Solution" The Rockefeller Commission report "reflected the temper of the times," especially the kind of catastrophic alarmism of Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, a book full of predictions and arguments that have since been proven wrong. And, in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that factors such as "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones" were considerations in the decision that imposed legalized abortion on America. BreakPoint>> Segment 3: Biden administration endorses transgender youth sex-change operations, 'top surgery,' hormone therapy President Biden's administration has released a series of documents encouraging gender-reassignment surgery and hormone treatments for minors. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Population Affairs released a document Thursday titled "Gender Affirming Care and Young People." The same day, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Child Traumatic Stress Network – another subset of the HHS – released a parallel document titled, "Gender-Affirming Care Is Trauma-Informed Care." Fox News>> Gender-Affirming Care Is Trauma-Informed Care Major medical associations recognize gender-affirming care as the standard of care for transgender,gender diverse, and intersex (TGI) youth. Gender-affirming care broadly refers to creating an environment that facilitates youth to move through the world safely as the gender they know themselves to be. This includes developmentally appropriate, evidence-based care provided by medical and mental health experts in partnership with youth, parents, and caregivers. It may include evidence-based interventions such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones. Gender-affirming care also includes access to opportunities that all children should have, such as playing team sports, safely using bathrooms in their schools and other public places, and positive relationships with supportive adults. National Child Trauma Stress Network Gender-Affirming Care and Young People Research demonstrates that gender-affirming care improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse children and adolescents.1 Because gender-affirming care encompasses many facets of healthcare needs and support, it has been shown to increase positive outcomes for transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents. Gender-affirming care is patient-centered and treats i

Tomorrow is the start of Ramadan, a month of prayer and fasting for Muslims worldwide. It's also a good month for Christians to pray for Muslims to find Christ. During this intense time for Muslims, not only are they are seeking atonement for their sins, they are actively seeking to know God. Christianity Today cites five reasons Muslims are attracted to Christ: "the lifestyle of Christians," "the power of God in answered prayers and healing," "dissatisfaction with the type of Islam they [have] experienced," "the spiritual truth in the Bible," and "biblical teachings about the love of God." In recent years, scores of reports from the Muslim world testify how God has actively used dreams, visions, missionaries, and others to draw Muslims to Himself. We can pray for open hearts and additional opportunities. For 29 years now, the 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World has guided Christians in their prayers for Muslims around the world. It's also a great way to learn about Islam and teach kids how Jesus is what Muslims are really looking for.

In 1996, American political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote a book called The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. In it, he proposed a remarkable thesis, that while in the past, especially in the 20th century, global conflicts had been primarily between nations, countries, and kingdoms, in the future, especially in the 21st century, global conflicts would increasingly be not between nation-states but between cultures, between civilizations. These cultural fault lines, as he called them, sometimes existed within a country or existed across regions. It didn't take very long into the 21st century to prove his theory correct. In fact, in The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington went on to predict that the hottest of these conflicts would be between religious and non-religious cultures, specifically, that what you might call the hottest of the hot would be between Islam and the West. In the time since 9/11, his predictions have largely played out. But there has been another story dealing with Islam that has played out at almost the same time. In fact, just over the last three decades or so, we have seen a remarkable number of Muslims coming to Christ. Individuals from the Islamic world are reporting conversions—sometimes through dreams, sometimes through missions, sometimes through other means. Regardless of the manner, it has been what one missiologist called a remarkable movement of the Holy Spirit. The reports are so numerous, in fact, that a foundation recruited a friend of mine, a scholar named Dr. David Garrison, to investigate. They sent him for several months to visit various corners of the Muslim world and to figure out where these stories were coming from. They wanted to know how legitimate these reports were. Garrison put together his findings in a book called A Wind in the House of Islam. You see, in the whole history of the Islamic faith, there have been few reports of large movements of Muslims becoming Christians—very few in fact. About 80 percent of all such movements in history have taken place in just the last three decades. There's something else that's taken place over the last three decades: Each and every year for the last 29 years, during the season of Ramadan, the most holy period for the Islamic calendar, a group of Christians led by a prayer guide have together prayed for Christ to draw Muslims to Himself. Ramadan is a very good time to keep our Muslim neighbors and Muslims around the world in prayer. Since 1993 to be precise, the 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World prayer guide has been equipping Christians to pray for Muslims during this season of Ramadan. It is an international movement that calls on "the church to make a deliberate but respectful effort to learn about, to pray for, and to reach out to our Muslim neighbors." There is even a 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World prayer guide for kids which I have used with my own family. The 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World is available both in a print booklet and as a digital download. You can find it by going to 30DaysPrayer.com, or come to BreakPoint.org, and we'll tell you how to pick up a copy. The Book of James tells us that "the effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." This has been a movement of prayer of hundreds of thousands of Christians for decades. Let's be a part of it.

According to National Geographic, "More than 80 percent of the ocean has never been mapped, explored, or even seen by humans." That's pretty incredible, given how much the ocean matters to our lives. And new research is showing us a much smaller frontier with just as much mystery: the cell. As Yasemin Saplakoglu recently described in Quanta Magazine, scientists at the University of Illinois have embarked on an ambitious project to map, using computers, a complete simulation of a "minimal cell." At 493 genes, the lab-made cell they're mapping contains far fewer genes than even the simplest natural organism. But the challenge is still proving to be steep. "For example," writes Saplakoglu, "no one knows what 94 of those genes do except that the cell dies without them." One of the researchers suggests there may be "living tasks or functions essential for life that science is oblivious to." That's an understatement. The more we learn, the more we should be filled with awe. After all, as Casey Luskin with Evolution News recently argued, high information structures like these have only one known source: intelligence with a Designer behind it.

Every once in a while, someone who doesn't profess Christianity will stumble upon some sort of natural or moral law that Christians have professed for centuries. To avoid agreeing with the Bible, or maybe because they legitimately think they've discovered something new, they'll often give the old idea a cool new re-brand. Case in point is a new piece at the edgy news-and-culture outfit Vice. The author reports on a brand-new type of progressive relationship structure: "radical monogamy." Not to be confused with the "boring, old, religious, traditional" kind of monogamy, "radical monogamy" is an exclusive relationship commitment that's chosen, not blindly accepted. And, this is crucial to the distinction: Monogamy that is "radical" is chosen from among the many equally valid relationship options, including polyamory. On one hand, it's not surprising that even those who wish to remain "sexually open minded," but still want to enjoy the best relationships possible, would land on monogamy. After all, as my old Tennessee friend would say, "it ain't rocket science." Research routinely shows that exclusive relationships, especially marriage, yield higher rates of general satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and healthier kids. Still, according to this Vice essay, proponents of radical monogamy stress that the decision to remain in an exclusive relationship was made by themselves, and for themselves. Of course, no one wants to be bamboozled, especially by someone else's morality or long-standing tradition. It's wise not to blindly accept social pronouncements or even moral and ostensibly religious arguments. Jesus often authenticated His pronouncements by alluding to or directly referencing the Old Testament. At the same time, it's quite foolish to rely only on our own minds or desires. And, to suggest that everyone who chose monogamy before now, including generations of stable couples who'd profess having wonderful lives together, either did it blindly or for the wrong reasons, is a profound act of what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." The worst part of "radical monogamy" is to suggest it's only valid if it's what I want, rather than because it is morally superior. What if your relationship partner also wants and deserves your exclusive commitment? What if it is the best context in order for kids to be safe and healthy? Is monogamy only "radical" if the well-being of others is not considered? An irony in all of this is that selfishness is about as mundane as it gets. "Me first" has been the same tired refrain of the sexual revolution for almost 50 years now. And it's a shame. After all, self-interested monogamy won't keep couples together any longer or make anyone any happier than any other sexually disordered relationship. Monogamy works precisely because it's a commitment to another because it says "I'll stay here even when" without knowing what is coming next. In that sense, no one enters into committed monogamy—or any commitment—with eyes wide open. So-called "radical monogamy" reflects a culture that tends to think of freedom only as freedom from any and all restraint. If free people are to choose monogamy, they have to consider, or maybe even try, every possible alternative. But life doesn't work like that. Christianity accepts that our lives are limited in both physical and non-physical ways: by things like the immovable reality of our bodies, by geography, and by moral laws. Human limits, including the moral limits of monogamy, narrow our relationship choices in ways that are more gifts than locked doors. Our limitations enable the freedom for something: the freedom to be truly human. A few years ago, a spokesmen for the media platform Second Life told journalist Leslie Jamison that users on their virtual reality platform would often become paralyzed by what was called the "white space problem." Apparently, the ability to build an entire virtual life from scratch, with limitless possibilities stretching in all directions, was too overwhelming. Too much white space isn't freeing; it's painful. Committed monogamy may limit our relational "white space," but when marked by real commitment and self-sacrifice, it's still the most fulfilling relationship option on offer, whether we call it "radical" or not.

John and Shane explain what happened at the Supreme Court nomination hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Many are talking about the fact that she failed to define a woman when asked. John explains that what we saw in the hearing explains a lot about where political parties are. Shane goes on to ask John about a listener's question related to J.I. Packer's book Knowing God. Shane explores the question, asking John to unpack how Jesus death and resurrection fulfilled the justice of God. To close, John is asked why he opposes the use of the word "balance." A listener asks how they should approach balance, when it has been a good tactic to build relationships with friends to explain the wholeness of the Christian worldview. John clarifies a definition of balance, and explains how true balance seeking is problematic and can cause troubled compromises.

As the Economist reports, the number of homeless Californians has surged by "more than a third in the past five years, compared with a rise of less than 6% nationally." By some estimates, half of America's unsheltered homeless population live in the Golden State. We ought never reduce people to mere statistics on this or any issue, or worse, to inconveniences. Proverbs 21 warns: "Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered." In fact, reducing the homeless population to their homelessness has been a big part of this problem. Historically, the U.S. has historically focused on a "housing-first" approach to homelessness: expensive programs putting people under roofs, but not much more. California's two most recent budget plans, for example, dedicate $26 billion to this approach. More money won't work if we don't address the heart of the issue. People must be seen as the connected image bearers and moral agents they are: in need of spiritual, relational, and physical redemption. Local governments do have a role to play, but this restoration requires the wider community, including the Church.

In 2014, physicist Michio Kaku wrote, "We are now entering the golden age of neuroscience. We have learned more about the thinking brain in the last 10–15 years than in all of previous human history." One particularly fruitful area of this science has to do with, of all things, gratitude. In a culture that values authenticity and prioritizes feelings, telling someone to "be grateful" can sound a lot like cheap pop psychology, or even worse, a tone-deaf lack of empathy. However, plenty of studies suggest that being grateful is far more significant to our mental health and well-being that we may realize. "Time and again," writes British psychologist Christian Jarrett: "Studies have shown that performing simple gratitude exercises, like keeping a gratitude diary or writing letters of thanks, can bring a range of benefits." A large and growing body of studies shows that exercising gratitude leads to better sleep, improved interpersonal relationships, better stress and hormonal regulation, and even reduced physical pains. One notable study followed over 40 participants seeking treatment for depression and anxiety. Half were asked to write letters expressing gratitude before the first few counseling sessions, while the rest formed a control group who attended "therapy-as-usual." Three months later, both groups were asked to perform a generosity task while being measured by MRI. According to Jarrett : "The participants who'd completed the gratitude task months earlier not only reported feeling more gratefulness two weeks after the task than members of the control group, but also, months later, showed more gratitude-related brain activity in the scanner. The researchers described these 'profound' and 'long-lasting' neural effects as 'particularly noteworthy' …. [This suggests] that the more practice you give your brain at feeling and expressing gratitude, the more it adapts to this mind-set…. a sort of gratitude 'muscle' that can be exercised and strengthened." Best of all, writes Jarrett, the positive effects of gratitude can spiral outwardly, creating a culture where gratitude becomes easier for others as well. Of course, gratitude is not a magic cure for all that ails us. It is, however, for mental health what vegetables are for physical health: vital, underrated, and sometimes difficult to swallow. That difficulty, in fact, is one of gratitude's enigmas. After all, it's one thing to say gratitude is beneficial; it's another to find an existential, compelling, or transcendent basis for gratitude. After all, the idea of gratitude is nothing new. It's no innovation of brain science. Even so, it doesn't always come easily for most people, even those who most know they need it. It seems especially difficult today, even despite the incredible scale of modern prosperity we enjoy. One reason could be that a central belief of the modern world is expressive individualism, a philosophy which tells us to be true to ourselves over and above anything else. Though that might sound liberating, if our lives and success are ultimately self-created, who have we to thank? And for those who, as many people do, feel a real desire to thank "the universe" or "god, whoever he or she is" for some success or well-being, an illusion of gratefulness cannot be long maintained if aimed at no one in particular. Many Christians, on the other hand, worry that if we allow ourselves to enjoy too much the good things from God's hand, we will forget to be grateful, or perhaps even forget about others who are suffering around the world. The Psalms speak powerfully to this tension. In many of the Psalms, God's people are encouraged toward more expression, not less. God invites the full weight of our grief and the full force of our hardest questions, and yet, at the same time, expects our gratitude, too. Throughout the Psalms, in fact, God's people openly share their sorrows and even despair. The way forward lies not in ignoring evil done to them by their enemies but in remembering the good and faithful work God has done on their behalf. Ultimately, gratitude "works," as more and more research suggests because it is a true response of a creature to Creator. As G. K. Chesterton has been somewhat paraphrased, "When we were children we were grateful to those who filled our stockings at Christmas time. Why are we not grateful to God for filling our stockings with legs?" Gratitude helps us see life clearly, and allows us to live it as God intended, to its fullest.

Few are standing for the inherent dignity and rights of children against the innovations of our age. But in this cultural moment, defending children against gender ideology and misguided interpretations of parenting is our version of "running into the plague and caring for victims" while everyone else is running away. John Stonestreet introduces author Katy Faust, the founder and director of the children's rights organization Them Before Us and author of the new book "Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement." She is married and the mother of four children, the youngest of whom is adopted from China.

According to Pew Research, a growing number of Americans are realizing the importance of the nuclear family. Just three years ago, 40% of Americans agreed with the statement "single women raising children on their own is bad for society." That number has now jumped to 47%. The same is true of cohabitation, which nearly a quarter of U.S. adults say is "generally bad for society." That's up 5% from three years ago. It's an encouraging swing for public opinion, especially with both trends still on the rise. Kids do best with both a mom and a dad in the picture. They do better still when mom and dad stay married to each other. Of course, there are a plenty of heroic single parents raising kids on their own, who will do everything they can to help their kids succeed. Data isn't destiny for all individuals, but it is destiny for a society. The loss of marriage is unsustainable. As the world leader in single-parent households, Americans will either have to reckon with that basic truth, or the next generations will continue to pay the price.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon formally requested the formation of a commission to study the effects of population growth on the United States: "One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man's response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today." Revealed in President's Nixon words are a number of controlling assumptions: that humans are a problem to be solved, that the world continues to exist by razor-thin margins for error, that too many humans would certainly push the earth past its breaking point, and that some combination of science and state could secure the human future. On March 27, 1972, the Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth and the American Future issued its report. Named for its chairman, John D. Rockefeller, and made up of an august group of Republican and Democrat lawmakers, policy wonks, scientists, sociologists, economists, and foundation heads, the commission's recommendations left "scarcely any topic touching on family relations and the human right to life… unaffected." A new document, entitled "Declaration on a New American Future," describes in detail the 50- year legacy of the Rockefeller Commission report: "…the Commission called for the legalization of abortion through the second trimester of pregnancy, public funding of abortion and abortion-providing organizations, universal private insurance coverage of abortion, and distribution of anti-population propaganda to teenagers." Even more important, was the report's "long-term impact": "…the Rockefeller Commission report posed, and continues to pose, a profound shift in the relationship between government and people. … the report relies on decidedly bleak conclusions about human prospects, the opportunities for economic growth and technological invention. It establishes as normative a relationship in which government is not merely an expression of the choices of a free people, but an overseer dedicated to its own designs for and limits on the populace, an overseer unbound by any duty to respect the sanctity of human life or the sanctuary of the family and other private institutions." The Rockefeller Commission report "reflected the temper of the times," especially the kind of catastrophic alarmism of Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, a book full of predictions and arguments that have since been proven wrong. And, in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that factors such as "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones" were considerations in the decision that imposed legalized abortion on America. The "Declaration on a New American Future" is a call to rethink the wrongheaded and destructive ideas of the Rockefeller Commission report, ideas with terrible consequences and countless victims. I am honored to join Chuck Donovan of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, former Ambassador Sam Brownback, pro-life leaders Jeanne Mancini, Kristan Hawkins, Catherine Glenn Foster, and brilliant scholars Robert George and Ryan Anderson and others, as a signatory, because as this important statement clarifies: "In the half century since the Rockefeller Commission report was released, the lives of 63.5 million unborn children have been taken in abortion facilities erected in the United States in the wake of the errors of Roe. Parental rights over their children, and their health and safety, have been eroded to the point that in a number of states abortions can be procured by or foisted on minor children without parental knowledge or consent. These policies and practices have been abetted by a series of public health alarms, beginning with population and environmental concerns and proceeding now through diverse panics induced by pandemics and climate change. In each of these declared emergencies, legitimate matters of the common good and public concern have been translated into government policies and mandates designed to truncate parents' rights and subject them to the will of the state. … "…it is time for a new direction. We equally reject the core policies on respect for human life promoted by the Rockefeller Commission and the apocalyptic tone and content of its warnings about a bleak and heartless human future. We hold that the history of humanity, though troubled by conflict, poverty, war and disease, demonstrates that progress is possible in every area of human endeavor. We likewise hold that it is essential that public policy reject extreme notions that put every group and individual in society in endless competition with each other for limited goods, and that inevitably lead to declining standards of living. We embrace the worth of every human life and call for positive policies that put supreme value on the sanctity of life and the preservation of institutions that safeguard it." The Declaration on a New American Future offers fi

For over four decades, William Wilberforce fought against the inhumane practice of slavery. He also worked for what he called the "reformation of manners." In the words of one biographer, he "made goodness, compassion and integrity fashionable." Wilberforce's work highlights the challenging reality Christians face in every cultural moment: the deep brokenness of this fallen world. Wilberforce engaged the culture of his time by highlighting the inherent dignity of humanity, most notably by fighting against slavery. His work in the "reformation of manners" was a major contributor to not only making slavery illegal, but also, eventually, unthinkable. The Colson Center's annual conference is named in Wilberforce's honor. At this year's Wilberforce Weekend, we'll explore the effects of Christ's redemptive work across every area of life from a variety of angles. The conference will be held at the stunning Rose and Shingle Creek in Orlando, May 13-15, and will feature Jim Daly, Os Guinness, Ryan Bomberger, Nancy Guthrie, Monique Duson, and many more. The weekend features compelling talks, panel discussions, live podcast recordings, and a screening of The Most Reluctant Convert, a film about the redemption of C.S. Lewis. For more information, visit www.wilberforceweekend.org

Our culture has long struggled with the realities of sexual difference, or "gender." While first- and second-wave feminism generally asserted that women were equal in value to men, transgenderism now asserts that women are interchangeable with men. Notice the underlying assumption: in order for men and women to have equal value, they have to be the same thing. Yielding to this fallacy has been a disaster, not just for the concept of gender, but also for the concept of human dignity. It's as if many think there's not enough of it to go around. The Church should be able offer clarity. Christians must insist that men and women are real. We must also insist that fact doesn't compel a competition. There is no hierarchy of human dignity. Unfortunately, Christians over the centuries have made some big mistakes in this area. At times, roles that men and women fill have been prioritized over the goodness of their God-given design. More often, roles have been conflated with design. For example, Christians have generally understood that the Bible does not permit women to pastor churches. Some have taken that further to suggest that women must lack the intellectual capacity or curiosity to study the Bible and learn theology. That's demonstrably false. Because of the real physical differences between men and women, and the different things children need from mothers and fathers, men have historically performed the breadwinning work for their families. Some Christians have wrongly assumed that this means women lack the ability, talent or calling to pursue any kind of work unrelated to motherhood. Yet the Bible is full of stories of women who contributed to their families, communities, and the kingdom of God in ways other than through motherhood or marriage. Another mistake some Christians make, which may be in response to modern feminism or critical theory, is to suggest that when women contribute something positive to society—a scientific breakthrough, or an impressive career—it's because of their inherent superiority to men. Conversely, when women contribute something negative—they commit a crime or mistreat others—the fault is the patriarchal systems that oppresses them. That way of thinking robs women of moral agency. In response, some Christians talk about the moral imperative for women to bear responsibility for what is wrongly considered exclusively female sins—such as immodesty or even abortion. Often, these Christians are unwilling to expect positive contributions from women outside the roles of wife and mother. In other words, Christians ought not react to the rejection, erasing, or confusing of gender, by merely retreating to roles. We must begin where the Bible does, with design. Both men and women were made by God in His image. How we live out our calling to fill and cultivate the creation will be marked, in both physical and non-physical ways, by our maleness or femaleness. At the same time, women who serve as wives and mothers are neither contributing more nor less than women who aren't in those roles. In other words, the primary calling of both men and women is to glorify God. How we do that in particular times and places, and in particular seasons of our life, will differ. Too often, while Church's ministry to men is about cultivating admirable Christian virtues such as bravery and courage, too much of the Church's ministry to women is only about how to be feminine. To think about Christian women only in relation to men is to paint an incomplete picture. In other words, we ought not leave the impression that Christian women are not also called to be brave and courageous, or well-studied and theologically grounded. And, Christian men are also called to be gentle, meek, and slow to speak. If, as Jesus told the Sadducees, we will "neither marry nor be given in marriage" in the New Heavens and New Earth, how we will serve and glorify God in the age to come will not be as fathers and husbands or mothers and wives. When Jesus said that in order to be His disciples, we must take up our crosses and follow Him, He was speaking to both men and women. Therefore, we should expect women to take responsibility for their sins, just as we should with men. And, we should expect profound contributions to the kingdom of God from women, as women, as much as we do from men. This has been the defining vision and approach of the Strong Women podcast. In a culture so lost on gender, one which now suggests that women don't really exist, Christians must stubbornly ground ourselves in God's good, created design of His imago dei. If we can get this right, we'll have much to offer our confused age.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sat before the Senate this week and boldly stated that she does not know what a woman is because she's not a biologist. Her statement says a lot, not necessarily about the judge, as John points out, but more about how we view the judiciary in this cultural moment. John and Maria also explain that the so-called trend of "radical monogamy" and society's need for more than consent are actually best housed inside Christianity. As John describes, these moments are a revisiting of history. He reveals how the power of sexuality is a physical reality, similar to gravity. Society highlights cultural moments like these as turning points when in reality these principles have been grounded inside God's design. Maria then shares the story of a high school football coach, Joe Kennedy, who simply prayed for his players privately on the field after football games. His school fired him, and his subsequent religious freedom court case is set to see the Supreme Court next month. John and Maria discuss the court case and project how the case will be received and why we can have encouragement and hope as we consider this situation. To close, John revisits a few BreakPoint commentaries from the week. Specifically, John reviews a BreakPoint on how we should pray for the people in Russia, praying through all of the Psalms including the imprecatory Psalms that call for justice on specific people in a specific moment.

When we think of Christ's call to love our enemies, we often think of work rivals or political opponents. Loving these "enemies" isn't easy, but not impossible. What if, however, our enemies are evildoers, responsible for acts of evil and violence? We can respect the brave protestors that have been arrested for standing up to Putin. We pity teenagers conscripted into a fight they neither sought nor understand. But are we really called to love Putin and his cronies or the Russian troops rejoicing in their conquest or the talking heads in Moscow calling to expand the war into Eastern Europe? Jesus' words about loving our enemies remain as true and trying as ever. But the radical love to which Christ calls us shouldn't be confused with squishy emotion or moral vacuity. We love our enemies by praying for God's mercy on their victims, and for His justice to overwhelm and overcome their wicked intents, and for His will to be done on Earth as it is in heaven.

In the historical dockyards at Chatham in England is the largest collection of Royal National lifeboats in the U.K.. On many of the lifeboats, printed numbers show how many times the boat has launched, and how many lives it saved. It's a haunting presentation of how life can sometimes hang on a precipice, and what it takes to rescue souls lost at sea. The dockyard is also an interesting analogy for the Church in this cultural moment. Sometimes churches seem more like a museum of saints, a place where salvation is remembered. Here, redemption is often described in the past tense, focused on what God has saved us from. Or, like the dockyard at Chatham, we mark our success by souls saved, with little reference to what happens next for those whose life is in Christ, much less their families, communities, or societies. This presentation of the Church isn't inaccurate, but it is inadequate. Our salvation isn't only about being saved from sin and hell, but also about being saved to eternal and abundant life and for a redemptive purpose. Once Christians experience the life-changing impact of the Gospel, God's restorative work alters every aspect of their lives. This is more than being saved from Hell, and it's even more than being saved to eternal life. The famous pastor John Newton embodied this. When he famously wrote, "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see," he revealed that he was not only redeemed from the incredible evil he perpetuated as a slave trader but that he was now given new vision, new direction, and new life. Newton inspired William Wilberforce, the great abolitionist, in the same way. For over four decades, Wilberforce fought against the horrible and inhumane practice of slavery, and also for what he called the "reformation of manners." He didn't see success immediately, especially on slavery. In fact, he was three days from dying when he heard that the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. But, in embracing the scope of God's redemptive work in Christ for the world, his personal redemption didn't stay private, he became a public force for good. Each year, the Colson Center gathers with Christians from across the country for an event named in Wilberforce's honor. The Wilberforce Weekend will be held in Orlando, Florida, May 13-15. This year's conference will explore, from a variety of angles, the scale and scope of God's redemptive work in Jesus Christ. Our goal will be to see all of life as redeemed by Christ. Together, we'll explore how Christ is best understood, not just as our personal Savior (though He is), but also as the center of reality. This means recognizing the essential links between who Christ is and creation, redemption, the kingdom of God, and all of history. We'll also dive deeply into the fullness of the redemptive vision Christ gives His people, as individuals, families, churches, and nations. We'll look closely at what we're saved from, not just Hell but death and fear of death, from bitterness and anger, and from confusion about who we are, all of which are incredibly relevant for the challenges of this cultural moment. We'll also look at what we're saved to...truth, identity and meaning and life, and also the vital needs of this cultural moment. And, we'll look closely at what we are saved for: wisdom, mission, reconciliation, and purpose. Along the way, we'll talk about what happens when redemption shapes a distinctly Christian approach to life, society, education, sport, hardship and conflict, film, and other aspects of culture. We'll hear from Jim Daly, Os Guinness, Ryan Bomberger, Nancy Guthrie, Max McLean, Rachel Gilson, Larry Taylor, Monique Duson, Morris Michalski—and many more! The Wilberforce Weekend features compelling talks, panel discussions, and live podcast recordings, and a special screening of The Most Reluctant Convert, a remarkable film about the redemption of C.S. Lewis. And, we're especially excited to announce an added pre-event, which will look closely at "Life After Roe," and the responsibility the redeemed have to continue their defense of the preborn until abortion is unthinkable. This even will feature Tim Tebow, Stephanie Grey Connors, Jim Daly and others. For more information, visit www.wilberforceweekend.org

The big problem isn't climate change ... for the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet with The Point. In a recent interview, former Secretary of State John Kerry lamented that the war in Ukraine would cost human lives and disrupt the principles of international law. But then the President's special envoy on climate expressed another concern: carbon emissions. You're going to "lose people's focus," on climate change, he told reporters: "Their attention will be diverted." To highlight the greenhouse emissions of a war which is actively claiming thousands of lives is backwards logic, at best. That's not to say people shouldn't care about the climate: We should. That's not to say war doesn't have a horrible impact on the environment: It does. But this is a worldview incapable of dealing with human evil, its human cost, or its real motivations. The former Secretary of State later expressed hope that melting ice will make Vladimir Putin rethink his war and help the world "stay on track with what we need to do for the climate." If only it were that easy. The people digging themselves out of the rubble in Kyiv or Mariupol might beg to differ.

In a recent interview, Mark Zuckerberg was asked to fill out a captcha test to prove once and for all that he's not a robot. In case you were wondering, he passed. It's all a bit funny, given (as John Mulaney observed a couple years ago), just how much time we spend these days proving to robots that we're not robots. Only human brains, apparently—can recognize every square with a stop sign or a boat. It's also a bit ironic, given the most exciting trend in computing technology is building computers using design principles based on the human brain. "Today's most successful artificial intelligence algorithms [are] loosely based on the intricate webs of real neural networks," writes Allison Whitten in Quanta Magazine. She's referring to something called "deep learning," advanced artificial intelligence that can compute huge amounts of data, while correcting mistakes or even anticipating future problems. From mapping traffic patterns to predicting storm fronts to understanding the stock market, the possibilities of deep learning are endless. For years, though, there's been a major holdup: how to keep it running. Deep learning requires so-called "simulated neural networks" or multiple layers of computers all crunching out the same problem. "Unlike our highly efficient brains," Whitten explains, "running these algorithms on computers guzzles shocking amounts of energy: The biggest models consume nearly as much power as five cars over their lifetimes." And now, after years of puzzling out how to make a system capable of running advanced AI, researchers are finding a breakthrough source of inspiration: the human brain. The secret lies in how the brain processes electronic data. Whereas digital communication is binary, using 1's and 0's, the brain's communication is analog: using one continuous data stream. Likewise, while digital tech relies on one central processing unit, the brain arranges millions of computing units next to memory units in the forms of synapses and neurons. The science is definitely chewy for us non-engineering types, but the results are incredible. Digital technology has transformed the modern world, opening vistas that previous generations would have thought impossible. Yet to fully master artificial intelligence, our brightest scientists are forced to direct their attention back to God's original design specs. This is part of a bigger phenomenon in engineering called "biomimetics." It's a word coined from the Greek bios, which means life, and mīmēsis which means imitation. Neurocomputing is just one of the more dramatic examples of what some have called the biomimetics' "goldrush," a race to understand and apply systems and design features of the natural world, which in many cases are far beyond even our most advanced engineering. This is not to say God somehow always prefers "natural" systems to "artificial" ones. Humans are designed to create and innovate and design in ways that have advanced us past our Garden of Eden beginnings. At the same time, there's no escaping the basic truth that natural systems are nothing short of stunning. People didn't design themselves, yet we possess self-repairing, massively complex biological systems. We experience life through five senses, our brains seamlessly integrating terabytes of data at all times. And to do it, we require only assorted organic materials we find around us. The brain can sustain itself on a cheeseburger. In 2013, a collaboration between Japanese and German scientists created one of the most realistic brain simulations ever attempted. They used what was, at that time, the world's fourth-largest computer, containing over 700,000 processor cores and producing an eye-popping 1.4 million gigabytes of RAM. The machine worked at top speed, crunching numbers for over 40 minutes. In the end, it produced just one second of simulated brain activity. Technology has advanced since then, but it still raises a fundamental question: How do we explain the complexity of the natural world? Darwinian naturalists are forced to punt to random, genetic mutations—or in the words of Bertrand Russell "accidental collocations of atoms"—and a limitless supply of time and chance. But they still can't escape the haunting questions. How did the universe itself come into existence? How do the laws of physics perfectly align for our survival here? How can we account for the incredible amount of complex and specified information in biological systems, including the human brain? How can we explain abiogenesis, or the origin of the first life from non-life? Christians don't have to agree on every scientific detail to point to what is obvious. There's a designer behind all of this design. In other words, as Casey Luskin with Evolution News summarizes: "Where, in our experience, do language-based digital code, computer-like programming, machines, and other high [information] structures come from? They have only one known source: intelligence."

John and Shane review healthy technology use. A listener asks for insight on what practices and habits a mindful parent has in their home as they lead their family in the digital age. Another listener writes in to ask how Christians should respond to the presence of oppression. The listener asks for perspective on what a Christian should do when they don't feel oppression, but are told it is present. John also helps a listener have a whole perspective of critiques of the modern church. The listener asks why church practices aren't reflected in the Bible.

Happy Lent. That's an odd-sounding phrase. One of the chief purposes of Lent, after all, is to confront our mortality. For the last two years, our focus has been on avoiding our mortality, dodging death, and largely hedging life against our fears of death. In this cultural moment, confronting our mortality during Lent is incredibly important. As New Testament scholar Mary Healy said, "We instinctively resist and recoil from everything that reminds us of our mortality—pain, deprivation, weakness, criticism, failure. This paralyzing fear ... leads to various forms of escapism and addiction, induces us to grasp the false security nets proffered by Satan, and keeps us from pursuing the will of God with freedom, peace, and confidence." Whether or not you typically participate in traditional Lenten activities—like the marking of ashes, fasting, or giving up something—I hope you'll still use these 40 days to face and ponder your mortality, with an eye to Jesus' resurrection, and the resurrection that awaits all of us who belong to Him.

A central claim of the gay rights movement—a claim that won the movement acceptance with the majority of Americans—was that being gay is part of who a person is, and not a choice. "Born this way," declared the title of a popular song. Another song insisted, "I can't change even if I tried." This idea of immutable sexual identity was further extended to other orientations and self-expressions. So, trying to suppress or change orientation or even behavior was labeled "conversion therapy." And, now that sexual orientation is considered identity, anything labeled "conversion therapy" is increasingly being outlawed. Recently, A new law just passed in Canada bans conversion therapy and defines it as any "practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation" or "repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behavior." Completing this rapid worldview revolution, all kinds of identities, also based on desires and feelings, are being treated as if they are unchangeable. And, if a desire is unchangeable, the reasoning goes, a person has a right to act on it. This logic has been applied to most desires imaginable—until now. In January, USA Today ran an article by Alia Dastagir titled, "The Complicated Research Behind Pedophilia." The article summarizes a growing consensus among psychologists that pedophiles, too, are "born this way," and that attraction to children is unchangeable. Understandably, Dastagir doesn't call pedophilia a sexual orientation, but rather, "attraction." Still, it isn't hard to imagine a slippery slope here. Slippery slopes are considered logical fallacies because they don't have to happen. However, it isn't hard to see how often they do happen. If our society maintains the logic that desires determine identity and therefore justify behaviors, then more deviant behaviors will eventually become acceptable. Dastagir argues that even if pedophilia is an unchangeable attraction caused by genetic or environmental factors, pedophiles can and must "control [their] impulses." The experts she quotes agree that people who are sexually attracted to kids have a choice whether to "act on the urge to abuse." One psychologist and author even said that acting on pedophilia is the same as the choice to act on any other "inappropriate sexual thought." As she puts it: "Pedophiles may not have control over the fact that they are attracted to kids, but they are responsible for whether they do or don't act on it." That psychologist continues: "Offending is devastating. It damages the lives of victims…You can learn to control yourself. You have the capacity to do better." The language sounds an awful lot like the kind that's been labeled "conversion therapy," or as the Canadian law puts it, an attempt to "repress or reduce a non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behavior." Don't misunderstand me: Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same. As much as we critique consent as the only moral stand our culture will take, it applies here. A minor isn't developed enough to give consent. I'm only pointing out that the logic could be argued the same in both cases. It should also be noted that, at the same time pedophilia is being reconsidered an orientation, minors have been given control of their sexual identities. If they can determine their sexual identification at younger and younger ages, how long will we prevent them from determining their sexual activities? Even so, the fact that social scientists and the press can avoid the logical conclusion of "born this way" for this instance shows how flawed that logic always was. Desires don't determine behavior or identity. They never did because, as human beings, we are moral agents responsible for controlling our appetites. This slope is just really, really slippery. I'm grateful that there are still those in our culture willing to distinguish between desires and behavior, in at least one case. We should press them on why this is a unique case because if the sexual revolution doesn't stop here, the consequences are quite simply unthinkable.

It's one of Russian painter Nikolai Yaroshenko's most iconic works. Out of the window of a prison car, a small child feeds a group of pigeons. We're not told who the child, his mother, or their fellow captives are. Yaroshenko's title is our only clue: Life Is Everywhere. As the world watches the situation unfold in Ukraine, we are forced to deal with the world's fundamental brokenness and the stark reality of human evil. But at the same time, there's something even more pervasive than evil and death: life. Today, even in Ukraine, there will be babies born, marriages officiated, and neighbors gathering to pray. On a deeper level, redeemed life is everywhere. Jesus came that we may "have life and have it abundantly." That life is not about material wealth. Neither is it about simply waiting for heaven. It's a renewed commitment to the values of God's Kingdom, right now. That can be simple as feeding pigeons or giving a cup of cold water to those in need. The joy Christians take in life points to our ultimate hope: a hope that can't be shaken.

If there's a term our culture has little appreciation for, it's "limitations." But that's exactly what makes Kelly Kapic's newest book You're Only Human worth reading. Intentionally or implicitly these days, people are told to ignore their physical, interpersonal, and spiritual limits. Even in Christian circles, it's common to constantly feel exhausted or guilty, as if we haven't done enough for God and His Kingdom. Dr. Kelly Kapic, a professor of theology at Covenant College, provides a compelling counter-thesis: "Many of us fail to understand that our limitations are a gift from God, and therefore good.This produces in us the burden of trying to be something we are not and cannot be." Human limitation is different from the idea of "sin" or even "fallenness." As a feature of time and space, "limitations" are nbuilt-in aspect of God's design. We need things like food and rest. We were not created to do everything by ourselves, even something as simple as finding our own individual identities. Ultimately, we are dependent, and our dependency is meant to draw us closer to the God who created us. Recently, Dr. Kapic joinedmy colleague Kasey Leander for a special episode ofon the BreakPoint podcast,. Their conversation is an especially relevant counter to dangerous assumptions that are shaping our world. One of these assumptions has to do with physicality. Seized by what some have called a "gnostic impulse," much of modern life downplays physical limitations. Digital technology tells us we don't need to "go" anywhere to "be" with people. We sexualize everything, and in the process destroy the possibility of normal, everyday physical touch. The most extreme example of this gnostic impulse is transgender ideology, which tells people they can only and finally feel fulfilled outside the physical reality of biology. In God's original design, the physical world was created "good." We flourish best, not when we "transcend" our God-given physical limitations, but when we live in accordance with them. This doesn't mean everything is perfect: Some of our limitations, of course, actually are caused by the fall. However, even in a world infected by evil, Christians have hope in a renewed, physical creation. If God loves our bodies, we should too. Kapic also highlights the idea of faithfulness in the Christian life. Too often, we're driven by a desire to do everything, ignoring our limited resources of time and energy. "It was Ben Franklin who said time is money," he tells us, "and as Christians we have baptized that." It makes me wonder what Jesus would make of modern busyness. The Son of God never shied away from challenges or difficulty … yet he spent an inordinate amount of time simply praying and resting. As the Agent of creation and the second Adam, Christ set the standard for a life well lived. A third takeaway from You're Only Human. has to do with the Church, the Bride of Christ: "God extends his love, provision, and values through the people who make up his church. His offer to be a refuge and strength frequently comes through his church. When he wants to bring a word of grace, a safe hug, a warm meal, it often comes through his church. Even when the church cannot do everything itself, it keeps seeking to promote the common good." The Christian walk demands community,and our collective limitations also point at something significant about our human limitations. Kapic continues: "The central mission of the church is to point people continually to the Messiah: he alone fully reveals the love of the Father and pours out his Spirit on us. The goal of all our good efforts is to draw people to the embrace of the triune God, not to serve as a replacement for him. All the gifts we exercise must ultimately point back to the true Giver." This is why Christians can read the news without losing hope. We cannot heal or restore our broken world, but Christ can and will. In that respect, our limitation isn't weakness. It makes us rely on the only true Source of strength.

Dr. Anthony Bradley of the King's College addresses the very important issue of how we are failing young men. The tyranny of low expectations, soft relationships, absent fathers… ours is a culture failing to transition boys to men. Dr. Bradley explains the current landscape and emboldens listeners to take action to love and support young men. This presentation is part of our Lighthouse Voices Series, done in partnership with Focus on the Family. Click here for more on the Lighthouse Voices Series>>

With the "Stop WOKE Act" and unfairly labeled "Don't Say Gay" bill, the Florida legislature is ordering state-run schools to adjust their curriculum, and respond to the will of parents. The U.S. Secretary of Education, in a strong response, threatened the state to follow federal interpretations of Title IX and civil rights laws or risk federal funding. It's not the first time the White House has used federal funds as leverage to get what it wants from Florida. The fundamental question here is whose job is it to educate? Increasingly, the state has not only claimed that task, it's also sought to actively keep parents out of it, especially when it comes to controversial social issues like race or sexuality. That state does have a place and purpose that was ordained by God. So does the church and so does the family. But the family isn't designed to be the church, the church isn't designed to be the state, and the state shouldn't be teaching its worldview to our kids.

Right in the heart of the Bible are some passages that are uncomfortable. The imprecatory psalms are among the hymns sung by the people of God but are far removed from current cultural conceptions of Christian "niceness" or a gentle Jesus as you can imagine. These are not the psalms of praise and thanksgiving to God for His goodness and mercy, but rather psalms that call for God's mercy to be withheld and His wrath to be unleashed against our enemies. For example, Psalm 69 says: "Pour out your indignation upon them, and let your burning anger overtake them. May their camp be a desolation; let no one dwell in their tents." Psalm 83 declares: "O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind. As fire consumes the forest, as the flame sets the mountains ablaze, so may you pursue them with your tempest and terrify them with your hurricane!" Then there's Psalm 109: "May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow! May his children wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!" Most disturbing of all is Psalm 137. Written after the people of Judah had been conquered and enslaved by the Babylonians, the psalmist cries out: "O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" We don't know what to do with these words. We wonder why these psalms are in the Bible, and if the author was an awful person. We ask ourselves how they fit with the self-sacrificing God we've known and loved. Not everything contained in the Bible is, of course, prescriptive. Many of the passages we struggle with are descriptive, describing evils or wrongs that took place. These passages, however, are hymns, even prayers of God's people. So, in the case of imprecatory psalms, the confusion remains. At times when world events, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, shake us out of moral lethargy, these cries for justice and wrath make more sense. We, too, become enraged. In the last few weeks, the world has looked on with horror as Russian forces violated the peace with those they claimed were their brothers. Millions have been displaced and thousands are now dead. As Moscow's become increasingly frustrated at its lack of success, its leaders have resorted to indiscriminate shelling and intentional targeting of noncombatants. It is right at these times to want justice, and to want it now! It is right to weep at the horrors of human existence, as Billie Holiday did with her mournful song about lynchings in the Jim Crow South, "Strange Fruit." Passages like Psalm 88 describe the struggle to find hope in God, and to lament the injustice in the world. Sometimes, the only possible moral response is to appeal for God's judgment on evildoers. Anger is a proper response to real evil in this world, a world that was created good. At the same time, we should pray that evildoers will see their sin and approach the throne of grace for forgiveness and salvation. After all, Paul was a persecutor of the Church, yet he was saved and used by God to take the Gospel across the Roman world. At the same time, just three chapters after Paul's salvation, another persecutor, Herod Agrippa, is struck down by God, and, as the text colorfully notes, was eaten by worms. The same Jesus who came gently riding a donkey into Jerusalem will one day come to establish the New Jerusalem riding a warhorse. Imprecatory psalms affirm our sense that there's real wrong with the world, that we are right to be angry about it. They speak of the psalmist's pain in their realness and rawness. They remind us that God is not afraid of our anger. In fact, He, too, is grieved and angry at evil borne of the sin we have committed against one another. These psalms, these imprecatory words, remind us that we can come to God in our anger and ask that He do something about it. The rest of the Psalms, and the rest of the Bible, remind us that He is trustworthy. As Abraham said of God, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" He will, and we can count on it.

John and Maria discuss the rise of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They ponder why the world seems to admire his leadership and what the significance is when the wider culture largely rejects many displays of masculinity. Then, Maria asks John to explain a recent commentary that highlights beauty in the face of the conflict in Ukraine. Sharing about the weight of redemption, John notes that redemption grounds many issues in the world and expounds on the Wilberforce Weekend theme "Life Redeemed." To close, John describes a recent commentary at BreakPoint on assisted reproduction. Maria shares some of the feedback often received on commentaries about this topic, identifying some challenges to questions for BreakPoint.

During World War II, Jewish teenager Fania Rosenfield lost nearly her entire family to the Nazis. She somehow managed to escape the slaughter happening in her town and find refuge for two years with a Ukrainian family before settling in Israel to begin a new life. Fania repeatedly told the story of the brave Ukrainian family who saved her to her children and grandchildren. And, a few weeks ago when the Russian invasion of Ukraine was imminent, Fania's granddaughter made a choice to reach out to the family who had saved her grandmother. Now, two young cousins from that Ukrainian family have fled to Israel and are safe with Fania's family. In the utter darkness of wartime, such as we're now witnessing in Ukraine, we wonder why a good God would allow such evil. Stories like this, of families transcending national, political, ethnic, and generational lines to sacrificially love others, remind us to thank God for allowing such beauty in the world.

In his book Life With a Capital L, author Matt Heard (also a speakers at this year's Wilberforce Weekend) describes a famous oil painting by Russian artist Nikolai Yaroshenko. "Five diverse prisoners—a soldier, a worker, a peasant, a mother and a child—are huddled together, peering through the barred window of a halted prison railcar. The child reaches through the steel bars, feeding pigeons on the railway platform. Even in the midst of an awful predicament, the five prisoners were making a choice to engage with something. With what?" "Yaroshenko's title gave me the clue, There Is Life Everywhere." Given the devastation mounting in Ukraine, that's a profound meditation. As I write this, casualties are mounting, and the Russian military is increasingly targeting civilian infrastructure, including a maternity ward in Mariupol. The resulting images—pregnant mothers and newborn infants being pulled out of the wreckage, shell-shocked faces covered in blood, thousands crammed into bus stations and bomb shelters and fleeing across Poland's border—remind us that life after Eden can be brutal, evil, and full of horror. Ironically, thousands of refugees are now streaming towards Nikolai Yaroshekno's own hometown of Poltava, once a city of the Russian Empire but now part of central Ukraine. When the scale of a crisis is this large, the dominant feeling for those watching is helplessness. If the actions of entire nations haven't been enough to stop Putin, what can ordinary people do? Like Yaroshenko's prisoners, we are trapped here in this broken world, forced to deal with life's fundamental brokenness and the stark reality of human evil. Yaroshenko's answer takes the form of a kid's grubby hand holding crumbs out for pigeons, a mom pointing her child to a simple wonder, and others taking it all in while facing a grim future. Evil may be everywhere … but so is life. So is goodness. So is beauty. Everything might be broken, but the goodness of our Creator's handwork shines through the darkness. In fact, in a very real sense, that we recognize the darkness as darkness, and evil as evil, presupposes the existence of light and goodness. And even in the midst of the darkness and evil in Ukraine right now, there is light. There is goodness. There is beauty. Take brand new baby Mia, born in a Kyiv bomb shelter as explosions rocked the surrounding neighborhoods. Or the nearly 4,000 marriages, some officiated in a mixture of bridal wear and fatigues, performed as Russian troops bore down on the city. For Christians, the context for the existence of evil is not just the good creation which precedes it. It is the redemption that will overcome evil. Anchored in His victory over death, Jesus offers abundant, overflowing life, not just in the distant future, but now. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy," Jesus announced: "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." This is no prosperity gospel. Nor is it some detached, pietistic hope of heaven. In Christ, there is life which both secures our eternal destiny and endows our earthly existence with meaning, love, and identity. C.S. Lewis articulated this brilliantly in his 1948 essay On Living in An Atomic Age. As the world first faced the possibility of nuclear destruction, Lewis offered an eternal context: "Those who care for something else more than civilization are the only people by whom civilization is at all likely to be preserved. Those who want Heaven most have served Earth best. Those who love man less than God do most for man." So, Lewis argued, should the atomic bomb ever drop, it ought to find us doing "sensible and human" things: praying, working, listening to music, laughing, and talking with friends. This is no naive or lighthearted invitation to shirk responsibility. It's an invitation to celebrate good things, even when by every worldly standard, the only realistic response is despair. Even now, there are Christians in Ukraine living this out: packing churches and singing hymns in a metro station. Volunteers who hosted "Night to Shine" events with the Tim Tebow foundation are now evacuating special needs families with their own trucks and gas. Indeed, there is life everywhere. In Christ, there is Life, abundant life, even in the darkest moments. "Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial," James wrote, "for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him." These words describe the joy and courage Christians have embodied for millennia, from the earliest martyrs to the Chibok schoolgirls. At the end of the day, there is Life everywhere.

Today we revisit a conversation from Shane Morris to commemorate St. Patrick's Day. Getting beyond the shamrocks, green beer, and parades, who was the historical St. Patrick? Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, we welcome back our former Colson Center colleague and expert on St. Patrick, T. M. Moore. Moore describes the events of Patrick's life and gives us an inspiring glimpse into the spiritual life of this giant of the faith, a man whom God used to ignite a revival among the Irish–a revival that would, in the end, save Western Civilization. Moore is the founder and principal of the Fellowship of Ailbe and author of Celtic Flame: The Burden of Patrick, which is available at our online bookstore.

According to the Barna Group, millennials who stayed in church were "twice as likely to have a close personal friendship with an adult inside the church." That was true for me. Around Christmas in December of 1990, I met Ms. Buckner, who lived down a windy, rural Virginia road. She was an 89-year-old widow. There was, shall we say, a pretty significant generation gap between us. We didn't know what to talk about, so she prayed for me. That prayer time led me to visit Ms. Buckner again two years later. I was even less interested in spiritual things by then and didn't think she'd remember me. When Ms. Buckner came to the door, I said, "You probably don't remember, but I was here two years ago." "John," she smiled. "I prayed for you this morning." Her friendship and prayers impacted me in ways I cannot measure. Prayer not only unites the church, it inspires faith. That's why we're hosting a time of guided prayer during Lent. These times will inspire you to pray for people in your church especially those in other generations. To sign up for the weekly reminders, visit breakpoint.org/praywithme.