Breakpoint

No matter how noble its intentions, every idea is ultimately tested by how well it handles reality. By most measures, the "Defund the Police" movement has failed dramatically. Since 2020, when calls for policing reform escalated, the nation has seen a 30% spike in homicides, combined with a rise in other violent crime. Now, cities that slashed police budgets like Portland, Los Angeles, and Oakland are increasing them again—some by up to 12%. The President has been inconsistent on the issue but, in January, he argued against "cutting funding for police," but also for supplementing their work with community and mental health services. The Economist sums up why: "No evidence suggests a relationship between the size of a police force and the number of people its officers kill," yet "ample evidence suggests that bigger and better-funded forces tend to reduce violent crime." A Biblical position is that people aren't just mental health cases to be cured. They're also moral agents who sometimes do wrong things. Even a healthy society will need more than just police, but will never need less.

Futurists and tech industry gurus have long promised a utopia where humans aren't dependent on pesky biological or geographical realities. Behind yesterday's cyberspace and today's "Metaverse" is the same idea: In a brave new world of digital existence, humans can be freed from bodies, specific locations, and other physical limitations. The rise of online technology made it possible for churches to continue in the early, uncertain days of the pandemic. Many congregations have chosen to keep their live-streaming option on offer, in order to accommodate their older, more vulnerable, or physically distant constituents. Other churches have taken it a step or two further. Some have opted for an online-only congregation, abandoning a physical building altogether. Somewhat more spectacularly, other churches are starting "churches" in Facebook's new Metaverse, where people, or their avatars, can "come" to church from anywhere in the world with other people who join from anywhere in the world. D.J. Soto, a pastor at what is called VR Church in the Metaverse, recently claimed, "The future of the church is the metaverse… in the church of 2030, the main focus is going to be your metaverse campus." On one hand, such innovation is just a recent chapter of a long history. Churches have long employed new technologies and methods to reach the sick or infirmed, particularly in times of crisis, and keep them connected with the wider Church. Evangelicals, in particular, have a long tradition of using new technologies in the service of evangelism, including the printing press 500 years ago, the newspaper 300 years ago, the radio in the early 1900s, and the TV in the late 1900s. This commentary, BreakPoint, got its start on the radio. But new technology and communication methods must be evaluated on more than whether or not something "works." This is also about what Church is. Decades ago, Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." Put another way, the means used to tell a story will shape what is said. When it comes to Church, it can change the nature of what we kind of people we are. People aren't just inviting the world into the Church through new technology, they're moving the Church into the new realm of that technology. Such a move can have unexpected consequences. While there's certainly cause for attempts to "reach people where they are at," what we reach them with is what we reach them to. We must make sure any effort to communicate the Gospel doesn't reduce the Gospel down to anything less than It is. Remember, Christ spoke of those who, in the Parable of the Sower, initially received the Gospel with joy, but, lacking root, turned aside when growing stopped being as convenient. But there's also something else to consider. A disembodied Church assumes that a disembodied faith is possible. A Christianity lived only online encourages America's already existing "choose your own adventure" understanding of religion. Christianity is about more than content. Rather, its content cannot truly be lived outside of the context of real people in the real world. As Tish Harrison Warren put it recently in the New York Times, "[B]odies, with all the risk, danger, limits, mortality and vulnerability that they bring, are part of our deepest humanity, not obstacles to be transcended through digitization." In contrast, a cyberspace "church" is something akin to 2013's "Her," where an imaginary relationship with an online persona becomes preferable to the often painful and inconvenient nature of tangible reality. As someone from that movie puts it, "You always wanted to have a wife without the challenges of dealing with anything real," a line that could be said of what too many seek from the Bride of Christ. The faith of our fathers is not simply attending a performance, or even embracing a set of ideas about God or Jesus. A church without doctrine is a mere social club or an arbitrary special interest group, but a "church" that remains doctrinally correct but only connects online is a mere chat room. A disembodied online existence makes it too easy to hide who and what we really are from those God has called to love and be loved by. The Christian life cannot be fully lived online. God has called us to this time and this place, to times and crises that are uncomfortable and to people whose issues and ailments are unpleasant. The world in which God is making all things new is filled with real people and real problems, and these won't be mended in the illusive world of an online existence.

John and Shane field a question from someone in the medical community who asks what physician-assisted suicide does to our view of medical practitioners. The listener also asks for a worldview breakdown on how physician-assisted suicide came to be. Next, Shane asks John what makes a church "woke", after a listener asks John and Shane to explain what woke is and what it does to a church body. A listener also writes in asking for clarity on what the mindful movement is and what worldview category it fits inside before John answers a listener's question on the four chapter Gospel that John has talked about in other shows. To close, John responds to a listener who asks for clarity on how Christians should respectfully disagree, noting a video from Matthew Vines and a response from Sean McDowell. The listener asks what Christians are to do when there is conflict inside Christian thought

Instead of having a doctor or nurse on hand, Nova Scotia's new "oral protocol" puts the ability to take lethal medicine in the hands of "patients" themselves. Incredibly, that could decrease the total number of assisted deaths in Canada. When using the oral method, up to 40% of California residents chose not to go through with the procedure. By contrast, asks ethicist Daryl Pullmann, why do only 2% of Canadians choose the same? Perhaps the presence of medical personnel creates a kind of "unintentional coercion," a troubling thought, given that over 7,000 Canadians died from assisted suicide in 2020. But the bigger problem, like the law taking effect in 2023 in Canada which allows for death on the basis of "mental health" issues alone, is that "We seem to be rushing headlong for a precipice here," as Pullman said in an interview. "We're medicalizing suicide effectively so that people who, for whatever reason, judge their life to be unacceptable [can] get medical assistance in ending their life." Human dignity is too important a thing to squander in our haste.

New data is poking holes in what's become a prominent cultural myth. "When it comes to divorce," write Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone in The Wall Street Journal, "the research has generally backed up the belief that it's best to wait until around 30 to tie the knot." This is because the divorce rate is generally lower for those who wait to wed. However, according to the National Survey of Family Growth, there's an interesting exception to this modern-day rule of thumb. Couples in their 20s who don't cohabitate first have some of the lowest divorce rates of any group. Though it's not exactly clear, from the research anyway, as to why this is the case. This particular cohort is disproportionately religious, something that is linked to lower divorce rates across the board. Even so, the data sheds further light on the relationship between cohabitation and marriage in American society. Decades of studies have led sociologists to broadly conclude that cohabitation leads to higher rates of divorce. In general, living with a partner, even one that eventually becomes a spouse, is associated with a 15% higher chance of splitting up. One Stanford study indicates that the rate is twice as high for those who cohabitate with someone other than their future spouse. "We generally think that having more experience is better…." says University of Denver psychologist Galena Rhoades, "but what we find for relationships is just the opposite." More partners mean more comparison, she argues, which can make it harder to achieve long-term contentment. Cohabitation also teaches couples that one can always head for the exit when problems seem too daunting, instead of to press in and stick it out. As a result, while marriages in general are more stable at 30, marriage to one partner is better, even if at a younger age. Still, despite a significant amount of data that says otherwise, society pushes a very different story about living together. People in their 20s, says convention, should avoid commitment, establish themselves professionally, and certainly try living together before tying the knot. For a generation raised in divorced homes, skepticism toward marriage is understandable … as is the desire to "try it before you buy it." After all, this is the same generation who never has to pick a restaurant before checking its rating on Yelp. And so here we are, in a culture where both delayed marriage and cohabitation are "normal," but relational satisfaction is rare. Married couples report more satisfaction across the board than cohabiting couples, in all kinds of areas, and report more trust by double digits. Even couples who've had to persevere in marriage through difficult seasons report higher levels of satisfaction. Marriage is also broadly connected with better health and wellbeing, not to mention the wellbeing of children, 40% of whom today are born out of wedlock. Though the data about marriage is overwhelming, fewer and fewer are choosing it. Compared to only 9% of Americans in 1970, more than a third of adults today (35%) will never tie the knot. That's not to say they won't have romantic relationships and create children. They will simply opt out of marriage. Given the relevant data, the idea that one should not get married "too early" emphasizes the wrong factors. Wisdom should always be exercised with commitments this big, but at the same time, age matters far less than the commitment itself. Limitless sexual experience, self-actualization, and the freedom to leave don't actually produce relational happiness in the long term. In fact, they damage it. In short, as a project of self-fulfillment, marriage might be worthless. As a way to reap the rewards of self-sacrifice, its value is incalculable. Christians know why. Marriage is a part of the created order. Though some marriages will tragically end for various reasons and others may want marriage but struggle to find it, the Church can provide vital community for all of its members, while still promoting marriage for the God-given good that it is. And when marriages hit rocky ground, resources like Focus on the Family's Hope Restored conferences, are available for those willing to fight for reconciliation … with incredible stories of success. Ultimately, though, a successful marriage requires the same thing as Christianity, a commitment to something bigger than ourselves.

Winston Churchill famously said that "we shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us." A recent example is Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue. After the deadly 2018 shooting, synagogue leaders consulted security expert Juliette Kayyem on how to prevent the same thing from ever happening again. "In security, we view vulnerabilities as inherently bad," she explained. "We solve the problem with layered defenses: more locks, more surveillance. Deprive strangers of access to your temple (and) have congregants carry ID." Her basic suggestions were good. But to Kayyem's surprise, when it came to keeping strangers out of the synagogue, "they would have none of it." Inviting in outsiders, the leaders explained, was central to the building's purpose. The Jewish concept of tikkun olam means the "repair of the world." Changing the building to prevent what would be antithetical to its design. Churches should also welcome outsiders, but according to Paul, it's primary task is to gather Christians for worship in order for them to be sent out. It's supposed to be a "go and tell" model, not a "come and see" model. Something to ponder…

Our information-saturated world runs on news headlines, one after another, all calling us to shock or outrage. It's tempting to simply want to turn off the noise. It's almost like the world is constantly coming into our clean rooms and dumping a new pile of dirty laundry for us to deal with. So, we just shut the door in order to stop the madness. For Christians, simply closing our eyes and plugging our ears is not an option. We may choose silence or a sort of media fast for a while, but God has not called us to this time and place in history to disconnect from it. At the same time, we need to discern between what is noisy and what ultimately matters. All of the breathless headlines and news stories can distract us from the most critical issues we face. Christians believe that the specific stories of our culture don't ultimately reveal "what" we should care about, but they are the "when" and "where," the context where God has called us to live out our faith. Another way to put this is that this cultural moment is the stage of the play, not the plot. It's the moment, but not the story. The news is where we see ideas and their consequences expressed, both good and bad. It's where the philosophies that were born in ivory towers meet the reality of people's lives, dreams, and decisions. Confusing the noise and chaos of the headlines with the Story of the world is the most common way Christians stray. As Christians in this part of the story, it's essential to trust the Divine Script Writer. God hasn't called us to success as we see it in this moment, but he has called us to faithfully play out our part of the story. Like any great play, the actors can forget their role or lose their place in the storyline and miss their entrance or line. Thank God, our Director is as good as it gets. This year, the Colson Center is partnering with Focus on the Family to produce a series of events to offer Christians a deeper level of understanding about the issues that matter most in this time and place. This special speaker series will focus on some of the most confusing and controversial parts of our story right now, specifically at the intersection of family and culture. The series will be presented in three parts this spring and three parts this fall and will feature a who's who of thought leaders addressing areas where we need to refocus our attention on the roles and responsibilities we have as Christians in our community contexts. The series starts tonight, with Dr. Anthony Bradley of the King's College. He will address 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. In March, Katy Faust of Them Before Us will address the various ways that children's rights are being sacrificed for adult desire. I hope you'll join the Colson Center and Focus on the Family for this special series called "Lighthouse Voices." To register for the livestream, visit www.colsoncenter.org/events.

During an online school board call last month, Ontario teacher Carolyn Burjoski raised concerns over the literature given to K-6th graders. One particular novel, she argued, made it seem "simple and cool" to have a gender transition surgery. Mid-call, the Regional School Board chair Scott Piatkowski interrupted, and the board voted 5-4 to discontinue her presentation. "This person was speaking about transgender people in a way that was disrespectful, that would cause them to be attacked and I really needed to ensure it did not continue," Piatkowski later claimed. Under Canada's human rights code, gender expression is a protected status in housing, employment, unions, and trade or professional associations. Burjoski was given a "stay at home order," and told to refrain from speaking to staff or students. This kind of story is why Christians need to think through a theology of getting fired. In the short run, speaking the truth might cost us. But if we really love our neighbor, we'll find a way to do it—gently and graciously—but with courage.

What if the church became the new go-to source for singles to find a date, instead of an app? For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is BreakPoint. Years ago, would-be couples met at a dance, at church potlucks, or around a friend's dinner table. Even further back, due to the gender imbalance in Roman society because of selective infanticide, many young men found their spouses at church. Today, many singles (including Christian singles) search for a relationship online, scouring profiles in dating apps, debating whether to swipe right, swipe left, or just give up. Dating apps have re-conditioned how singles think about dating and relationships. Long gone are the times when a single young man walked into a community, noticed a young lady, and was forced to overcome his nerves to take a risk. On one hand, many dating apps have taken the first impression beyond appearances to other important relational factors such as interests, hobbies, and shared views on essential issues. On the other hand, apps enable relationships to be even further isolated from real community. That's often not healthy. It may also be that apps are another way our lives are being disembodied. Recent studies reveal that many young people are "explori-dating," interacting with someone from a different country, background, or faith, ditching these leading indicators of long-term relational stability in order to just explore. Some are now "hesidating," a term coined by the online dating site Plenty of Fish to describe mostly single females who struggle to choose whether to date seriously or casually because of how uncertain life feels. Tonight, in fact, many young people will choose to celebrate "Gal-entine's" or "Pal-entine's" Day instead of Valentine's Day, an indication of how difficult it is for so many to date and commit. And of course, there's the uglier side of dating apps: a world of sexting, secret connections, ghosting, and targeting. Online anonymity can lead singles to go farther than they wanted to, stay longer than they intended, and pay more than they were hoping. To be clear, dating apps have diversified and improved. Many young people find love online , and enter long-term committed relationships culminating in marriage. In one sense, apps now fill the significant relational gaps in our changing culture. Some suggest that given how difficult it is to date these days, apps have changed things in "positive ways." Helen Fischer, an anthropologist who's studied dating trends for over forty years, and is a scientific adviser to one of the largest dating apps, believes these opportunities create "historic turnarounds with singles. They are looking for committed relationships." What if the church has a role to play in creating contexts for relational connections, even romantic ones? What if the current relationship dearth being filled by apps could be filled by Christian matchmaking communities instead? Since it is Valentine's Day, it's worth reflecting on the day's namesake. Valentinus of Rome was a 3rd-century martyr, and though the specifics around his life are somewhat cloudy, the most widely accepted version of his martyrdom is that he ran afoul of emperor Claudius II for encouraging romantic love and marriage in his community. Claudius believed that Roman men were unwilling to join the army because of their strong attachment to their wives and families. So, he banned it. But Valentinus believed marriage was an essential part of human life, or like we say around the Colson Center, like gravity. So, he reportedly married couples in secret despite the edict from Rome and was caught and executed for his deeds. Today, to follow Valentinus' example by creating contexts for singles to meet, within a larger healthy community, is to offer the world something it needs but doesn't have. To celebrate marriage not just in word but indeed is to declare that committed romantic relationships are possible and good. To place these relationships, as the Christian worldview does, in the larger context of our God-given identity and purpose is to point young people to love for the good of others, as opposed to love as mere self-expression. As C.S. Lewis outlined in The Four Loves, a Christian view of passionate love, "eros," differs from mere sentimentality or sexual desire. Eros, when rightly ordered, causes us to toss "personal happiness aside as a triviality and [plant] the interests of another in the center of our being." Where else will young adults hear that definition of love? The Church has much to offer a lonely world on Valentine's Day and the rest of the year. The Church, of course, is to be a people that cultivate a community together. It may be that we should become a bit more intentional about cultivating marriages too.

Given the mounting tension at the Russian-Ukrainian border, Maria and John discuss insights on how Christians should think through Russia's preparation for conflict. A recent New York Times highlighted a phenomenon known as "Birds Aren't Real," leading to Maria and John commenting on the state of young adults in America. To close, John recommends the new series the Colson Center is conducting with Focus on the Family: Lighthouse Voices. -- Resources -- From Peter the Great to Putin the Bully — A Briefing on the Ukraine Crisis and the Russian Threat: History, Empire, Kiev, Moscow, Religion and Worldview The Briefing>> A Movement to Fight Misinformation…With Misinformation Birds Aren't Real, a conspiracy theory with an apparently absurd premise, has become surprisingly popular in the past few years. But its followers were in on the joke: The movement's aim was to poke fun at misinformation … by creating misinformation. Has it been successful? NY Times>> Our Christian Witness Since the contentious 2016 election, many have publicly questioned whether evangelical support for Donald Trump "hurts the Church's witness." Others assert that to vote for anyone but Donald Trump warrants excommunication. Over the last two years of the pandemic and all its associated controversies, some have confidently proclaimed that if Christians choose to not wear a mask or not be fully vaccinated they've harmed the cause of Christ. Others announced that to wear a mask or be vaccinated is to compromise the cause of Christ. BreakPoint>> -- Recommendations -- Lighthouse Voices Series - Colson Center and Focus on the Family>> Pandemic Board Game>>

An Atlantic reporter who visited last month's March for Life in Washington, D.C., painted an encouraging picture: This year's march was full of teenagers. "Liberals might not know just how young the March for Life crowd tends to be," the reporter wrote, describing groups of high schoolers and college students who'd come from several states away to march in the freezing cold. Statistics routinely show that younger people are the most pro-abortion demographic in the country. If that's true, the youthful March for Life crowd is especially encouraging: Young pro-lifers might be the minority, but they're more mobilized, more willing to face the cold and the criticism, and they're less quiet. In fact, the Atlantic reporter wasn't surprised only by the age of the marchers; she also called the atmosphere hopeful. Kids are good at hope. It's good to know there's a generation coming up with the energy to take on the cultural challenge of a post-Roe United States.

Before the Glasgow climate summit in November, British ecologist and futurist James Lovelock wrote an opinion piece in The Guardian, entitled "Beware: Gaia may destroy humans before we destroy the Earth." "Gaia" is the ancient Greek goddess who personified Earth, and the theory behind it is one Lovelock pioneered in the 1970s. The idea is that Earth is a single complex organism with its vast amounts of life striving to balance and correct its ecology, sort of like a huge immune system. From that worldview foundation, Lovelock offers this extreme conclusion: "Covid-19 may well have been one attempt by the Earth to protect itself." He means, of course, that the earth was attempting to protect itself from humans. If people continue to egg on the planet he warns, "Gaia will try harder next time with something even nastier." It's not clear whether Lovelock means for his theory to be taken literally or metaphorically. On one hand, this could be the musings of a materialist, talking in a colorful way about "natural systems." On the other hand, Gaia theory is the kind of belief a generation of spiritually hungry climate activists are tempted to latch onto. Gaia theory taps is one expression of an emerging spiritual trend among Americans. In recent years, number of people claiming to practice witchcraft in the U.S. has increased dramatically, as have the number of young Americans interested in astrology. The line between secular materialism and new age panpsychism is surprisingly thin these days. Just take "New Atheist" Sam Harris, who despite being an avowed materialist, advocates strongly for meditation to achieve "transcendence" and push past what he calls the "illusion of self." Beliefs like Gaia attempt to explain the improbability, complexity, and intentionality of our universe, something old-school Darwinism has always struggled with. They provide an avenue for spiritual feelings without demanding any significant responsibility or change in return. They can also serve—as Gaia theory clearly has for James Lovelock—as a sort of ideological battering ram, to help convince those who would otherwise oppose a certain ecological agenda. But beliefs within the Gaia ecosystem (pun intended) all have something in common: They're user-generated. Unlike organized religion, Gaianism (the name for the spiritual version of Gaia Theory) can essentially conform to any number of beliefs of the person holding it. It's not subject to any kind of empirical test or source of divine revelation. It doesn't require a lot of specificity as to what exactly believing it entails. For that reason, it not only buckles under close scrutiny, it evades scrutiny altogether. That's a red flag. First, because, short of just claiming it, there's no way to verify whether or not a belief like Gaianism is true or real. No tree, rock, or koala bear has ever said a word to me about Mother Earth's existence. In fact, outside of people attributing personality to nature, there's absolutely no way to prove that Covid-19 is the Earth's angry way of punishing us. But therein lies the huge conundrum for Gaianism: It doesn't know what to do with humanity. Are we a part of nature, a plague of nature, or something else entirely? If people are just another part of the system, then who's to say constructing massive cities, designing virtual worlds, dumping chemicals and sewage into rivers, or chopping down trees is anything other than natural selection working towards its logical end? If everything is Gaia, aren't we Gaia too? Of course, we all agree that people shouldn't do things like dump chemicals in rivers. But that's only true if we are qualitatively different from—and responsible for—the natural world. Otherwise, it's just nature conquering nature, which nature always does. There needs to be a true and distinguishable "we" in this scenario, something Gaia theory can't account for. Christianity can. In fact, Christianity gives us a grounding for every belief Gaia theory proposes but doesn't have grounding for. For one thing, the Christian story bases its entire existence on a potentially falsifiable event: the resurrection of Jesus. That gives an evidence test that New Age philosophies can't match. If Jesus rose from the dead, the whole thing is true. If Jesus didn't, as the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, then the whole thing is nonsense. Secondly, Christianity can explain the mind behind the cosmos: the infinitely wise, infinitely just Creator who made this world and cares what happens to it. It's not just blind forces of nature telling us to check ourselves, or illusions of physicality based on some kind of divine spirit. We have a Heavenly Father, the divine source of personhood. Third, Christianity tells us who we are, how we fit into the full story. We are special stewards of creation, capable of massive amounts of good and evil. We're made in the image of God with a divinely ordained job to do: Cultivate the created world. The thing Christiani

John and Shane answer a question on whether or not abortion rates are impacted by who is President. They also give context for how spending money on gambling is different from other forms of entertainment. Shane asks John for some worldview structures for a listener starting a worldview group in his church. To close, Shane asks John why it seems society doesn't recognize the LGBTQ movement as a religion or worldview? -- Resources -- Snopes: Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones Politico: A graphic on U.S. abortion rates shows larger declines during recent Democratic presidential administrations, and says its due to the party's approach of making abortions unnecessary, rather than the Republican Party's approach of making the procedure illegal. - BreakPoint: Sports Gambling Is a Bad Bet BreakPoint: Gambling: A Plague We Can Do Without BreakPoint: Don't Bet on the Gambling Industry BreakPoint: The Cost of Digital Addictions? Josef Pieper: Leisure the Basis of Culture Neil Postman: Amusing Ourselves to Death - Subscribe to BreakPoint: https://breakpoint.org/subscribe/ AXIS - Connecting Parents, Teens, and Jesus in a Disconnected World: https://axis.org Os Guinness - Why The Cultural Moment is a Crucial Aspect of Our Calling As Christians: BreakPoint Podcast

According to The Washington Post, undergraduate enrollment nationwide dropped by over 3% last year—some 465,000 students. Maybe the pandemic led more students to stick closer to home, or maybe a job-friendly labor market tempted more to work instead. Either way, it's forcing the question of what college is actually for? In too many universities, true critical inquiry has been replaced by ideological conformity. For example, Republicans comprise just 4% of historians, 3% of sociologists, and 2% of literature professors. But the problem isn't just that there are more Dems than GOPers, but that there are more admins and "Diversity Equity and Inclusion" officers than students. It's that schools are indoctrinating instead of educating. Christians have a new challenge—and opportunity: to preserve the best of classical liberalism. After transferring to Hillsdale College, one surprised former Ivy Leaguer atheist liberal put it this way: "I was confronted with the fact that these religious institutions were, in practice, far more aligned with my values like individual liberty, critical inquiry, and diversity of thought than the place that explicitly claimed [those] things." That's a great report card—and an even better goal.

Since the contentious 2016 election, many have publicly questioned whether evangelical support for Donald Trump "hurts the Church's witness." Others assert that to vote for anyone but Donald Trump warrants excommunication. Over the last two years of the pandemic and all its associated controversies, some have confidently proclaimed that if Christians choose to not wear a mask or not be fully vaccinated they've harmed the cause of Christ. Others announced that to wear a mask or be vaccinated is to compromise the cause of Christ. Whenever cultural flashpoints are used to judge the faith of others, the same script tends to be followed. An appeal is made to the Church's witness and reputation in the wider world. Of course, the Bible is clear that Christians indeed bear some responsibility for how our faith is both perceived and received by those inside and outside the Church. After He washed His disciples' feet, Jesus told them that by loving each other in that way, "all people will know you are my disciples." When He prayed in the garden on the night before His crucifixion, Jesus asked God to unify His followers so that "the world may believe that you have sent me." When people see our good works, Jesus said, they may "glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). In other words, Jesus clearly tied together the love among fellow Christians with the plausibility of the Gospel message to the wider world. What's clear from these verses, and throughout the Bible, is that we bear responsibility for our reputation both inside and outside the Church, and that stewarding the Gospel message means protecting both the integrity of the message and demonstrating its impact on our lives and the world around us. The Gospel is both plausible and compelling, and we ought never do anything to make it seem less so. However, what the Church is not (and cannot be) responsible for, is the reaction a world will have, particularly a world that is unbelieving and even hostile to either Christian morality or Christian truth claims. "Loving our neighbor," for example, will mean very different things to someone depending on their definition of love. According to our constantly shifting, culturally dependent definition, an act of love can seem like intolerance or even hate. In the same way, we are not responsible if someone perceives the good news of the Gospel message as bad news. We are not necessarily at fault when it is rejected or hated, or when it offends as Jesus predicted it would offend. The good news, though, is that when the Gospel is believed, embraced, or heeded, the success belongs to God, not our clever methodology or presentation. According to Scripture, what "hurts our witness" the most is disunity. And this doesn't mean that unity comes at the expense of church. But what we're told "hurts our witness" the most in this cultural moment is violating the new moral consensus about sex, politics, or controversial public figures. So, in an effort to "protect the witness," we spend an inordinate about of time policing each other's behavior, often publicly, about matters prioritized within a wrong set of values. I've no doubt that much of the concern over the Church's witness is genuine and well-intentioned. We are responsible to live as if what we say we believe is real. At the same time, Jesus didn't rebuke the Pharisees for being "mean," but for being hypocrites. Whenever our well-intentioned concern for the Church's witness becomes a dressed-up purity test, what we're really saying is "You can't be a Christian and do that thing." And that misunderstands the Christian faith altogether. True belief always leads to regeneration, and sanctification takes time. Salvation is not forfeited every time a mistake is made or a theological error is committed. The patience and grace we extend to each other, even when a fellow believer makes a decision we disagree with, is a way of loving one another and advancing the witness of Christ to a watching world. In fact, imagine how compelling the Church's witness would be today if we prioritized forgiveness. Our wider culture has absolutely no time for it, and many of those most "concerned for the Church's witness" have little time for it either. To forgive, is considered complicity in evil. To accept any apology as sincere, or to extend grace, or even the benefit of the doubt is completely unacceptable. Christians should be different. We shouldn't just take different sides of an issue: We should take our sides differently. We might find out that forgiving easily and assuming the best of one another will compel a watching world to ask us for the reason for that kind of hope. We might find that forgiveness, not a purity test, is the best thing for the Church's witness these days.

Weighing just 11 ounces, newborn Hannah Stibbles is considered the smallest baby born in the U.K.—certainly in the last 20 years. Glasgow doctors told Hannah's parents she had "next to no" chance of survival, but delivered her by C-section anyway. For Hannah's mother, 17-year-old Ellie Patton and her partner Brandon, Hannah became a living miracle. "She came out fighting for her life and proved everyone wrong," says Ellie. "She is a wee smasher." Hannah's survival—and the natural joy so many feel at her fight for life—are just another moral paradox for those who maintain that the unborn aren't fully human. It's a fiction that is getting harder to maintain. Though the Roe v. Wade decision considered birth at 25 weeks "unviable," science is continually reassessing that criterion—and reaffirming what we should have known all along: It's a fantasy that the unborn aren't alive and human Hannah, and every child born or unborn, are worth fighting for.

Writing in The Washington Post last week, prominent columnist George Will described the heart-wrenching account of 29-year-old California man dying a slow and agonizing death from cancer. The man's wife has documented his painful decline in photos. In his column, the writer argues that it would have been better if this man had obtained a medical suicide and praises states like Oregon that make this option available. In Will's ideal world, medical aid in dying would be available for all terminally ill patients, "not for truncating an unhappy life," but for "preventing a hideous death." He hopes to distinguish between a world in which doctors hand out suicides like candy, and one in which people already in their final days can obtain a swift and peaceful end. This modest-sounding proposal is obviously motivated by compassion. However, compassionate motives don't make something morally right, nor can they prevent horrifying abuses of human dignity. If the ideas are bad, there will be victims. Doctors killing their patients—even when those patients request death—fundamentally alters medicine. Everywhere this has been tried, the weak and vulnerable have been endangered, the medical profession corrupted, and family relationships poisoned. In places like Oregon, in which doctor-assisted death was legalized on arguments from stories of unbearable physical pain (like the one told by Will in his column), a significant number of patients choose death for psychological factors. Will, however, dismisses these concerns. "Life is lived on a slippery slope," he wrote. Just because we can imagine ways medical aid in dying could be abused doesn't mean it will be. But doctors killing patients isn't so much a slippery slope as it is a radical altering of the medical landscape. It's a sheer drop off a moral cliff. And it's not guesswork if we have the trial runs to prove it. In countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for decades, the acceptance of doctor assisted death has led to euthanasia, the killing of patients who don't request death. Ryan Anderson, now with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, thoroughly documents this in an in-depth report from 2015 for the Heritage Foundation. Government surveys in the Netherlands uncovered "thousands of cases" in which doctors "intentionally administered lethal injections to patients without a request.…" This includes "children, the demented," and "the mentally ill." The progression from death-on-demand to death-at-doctors'-discretion makes a grim kind of sense once the original premise is accepted. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted before he was on the Supreme Court, physician-assisted suicide always relies on the physician to make the fatal decision. The patient may request to die, but the doctor is still the one who determines whether the patient is competent and eligible. Small wonder that wherever medical aid in dying has been legalized, doctors and lawmakers have quickly begun asking why they need patient's permission before exercising "compassion." The arguments for medical aid in dying lead so quickly to euthanasia that one legal scholar quoted by Anderson chides his fellow advocates for a "certain lack of courage" in not admitting their ultimate aims. Once death is a treatment option, patients can no longer trust their doctors, their insurance companies, or even their families to have their best interests at heart. "Terminal illness" quickly broadens to include "intolerable suffering" which soon broadens to include "mental suffering." And as medical bills pile up and family members whisper in the halls, patients themselves begin to feel that their "right to die" has become a "duty to die." Yet as Anderson points out, there are alternatives to the corrupting practice of medical suicide, such as renewed investment in hospice and palliative care, that affirm human dignity and mortality while not asking doctors to become executioners. While none of these alternatives make death easy, they do respect the sanctity of life and the precious relationships that make life worth living to its natural end. If compassion is our goal, we should think long and hard about these values, and we should consider the consequences for societies that have leapt into medical suicide with nothing but good intentions.

As NBCNews reported via Twitter, the Chinese Communist Party chose a member of the Uyghur minority to complete the torch relay and deliver the Olympic flame to the opening ceremonies of the winter Olympics. The Uyghurs are a mostly Muslim ethnic minority in China's western regions that have been targeted in Chairman Xi Jinping's nationalistic and totalitarian agenda. Uyghur are being sent to concentration camps, subjected to systematic rape, forced abortions, and sterilization. By every measure, it's genocide. Going into the games, the world already knew that the Uyghurs were being subjected to the same sort of atrocities that defined evil in the last century. The Chinese Communist Party also employs the same sort of propaganda. As CNN's Jake Tapper put it, it's "hard to imagine a more cynical move." We can't keep tyrants from being tyrannical, but we can refuse to pretend that what they're doing is normal. And, we can call on our leaders to do the same. Anything less would be, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it, to live by lies. Something we must never do.

"Trust is to capitalism what alcohol is to wedding receptions," suggests Jerry Useem in an article in The Atlantic last November, "a social lubricant... 'If trust is sufficiently low,'" he continues, quoting economists Paul Zak and Stephen Knack, "'economic growth is unachievable.'" Public trust, specifically of the federal government, began to erode in the 1960s. The series of unfortunate events in the decades that followed—wars, Watergate, economic struggles, impeachments, ever-deepening political divisions—only contributed to what has become a steady decline of public confidence in the federal government. The only notable exception came with the brief spike in national unity in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. During the last two years, like so many other social conditions that pre-existed the COVID pandemic, the numbers hit an all-time low. Our national distrust is not only aimed at Washington D.C.. According to a 2019 Pew Study, almost two-thirds of Americans believe trust in each other is falling. The inherent connection between interpersonal trust and social stability, has an impact on the economy, among other things. In their report, titled Trust and Growth, Paul Zak and Stephen Knack describe that "low trust environments reduce the rate of investment and thus the economy's growth rate…very low trust societies can be caught in a poverty trap." On the other hand, when social trust improves, so does interpersonal trust..This can actually lead to economic growth. Americans' trust in each other, however, dropped from 45% in 1973 to just 30% in 2014. Useem thinks that had trust among Americans been stronger during that time frame, more like New Zealand for example, "(our annual GDP per capita would) be $16,000 higher." In addition to our pocketbooks, the loss of trust is affecting work. According to one study, 42% of employees think that their employers do not understand their pandemic experiences. Conversely, employers are showing a decline in trusting their employees. Since the pandemic started, the employee monitoring software industry has grown by 50%. According to one study, 74% of remote workers are concerned their employer is monitoring when and how much they work. As one Forbes article that predates the pandemic put it, a lack of trust in the workplace "demotivates employees and is costing businesses dearly." Trust is a significant ingredient of what can be called "social capital." Just as an individual needs financial, relational, and labor resources to start and grow a business, so a society needs financial, relational, and labor resources in order to grow and flourish. It only makes sense that a collective loss of trust, particularly at the scale we are now experiencing, would be felt in economic terms. As opposed to more short-term factors like monthly job creation or a particularly volatile stock price, social trust points to more consequential concerns about longer-term stability and sustainability. Christians, of course, care about social trust for far more important reasons than the economy. The economy, in fact, is just one of many indicators of human flourishing, but there are others, such as family stability, mental health, upward mobility, education, and creativity. Trust is critical in each of these aspects of social capital. Starting tonight, and continuing for the next four weeks, a new Colson Center short course will tackle this crisis of trust. Taught by Dr. Bruce Ashford and Dr. Yuval Levin, the course will begin with Dr. Ashford exploring where authority is grounded in a Christian worldview, namely the character of God. Next Tuesday night, Dr. Ashford will explore some of the social factors and historical shifts that have led to the current crisis of trust and authority. In the third session, Dr. Ashford will teach on how Christians can cultivate discernment, an essential ingredient if we are to rebuild trust in the context of our fallen world and broken cultural moment. Finally, to close the course, Dr. Yuval Levin will talk about the crisis of trust in social institutions and how we can work to rebuild them. As Useem wrote in the Atlantic article, "A trust spiral, once begun, is hard to reverse." But what choice do we have but to confront it? If we are to be faithful to Christ in this cultural moment, Christians must embrace the call to be agents of reconciliation in their own spheres of influence. That's why this short course is so important right now. "The Crisis of Authority and Loss of Trust: A Christian Response" course begins tonight, at 8 p.m. Eastern, and will continue for the next four weeks. Each session is live online, and recordings are made available for anyone enrolled in the course not able to make the live session. To register, please visit www.colsoncenter.org/events.

Several Nordic countries that, for decades, have had among the world's lowest birthrates, experienced a babyboom during the pandemic. In the second half of 2021, Iceland saw an incredible 16.5% more births than usual, and Finland and Norway experienced 7 and 5% more births, respectively. Typically, a global crisis results in lower fertility rates. In the U.S., for example, the birthrate dropped by 4%. In China, it was a staggering 15%. For years, Nordic countries have offered generous incentives to increase child births, to little effect, as have other European nations that did not see a similar boom during the pandemic. So, money can't explain it. Perhaps for some, the pandemic highlighted what really matters. One Icelandic mom of teenagers said: "We would just have conversations about everything and nothing and have fun and laugh. … I think that was the tipping point for me. I realized I wasn't ready to be done with the mom thing." The mom thing—and the dad thing—is a good thing.

It should go without saying that, in 21st century America, most of the assumptions at work in contemporary culture are not Christian assumptions. And whatever new "normal" is, it's constantly changing, it's anything but worldview neutral. As my friend and author Natasha Crain puts it in her new book Faithfully Different, "We are in a culture where feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess." That means that Christians today are called to a daunting task: believing, thinking, and living contrary to widely accepted beliefs and practices. We must be a "worldview minority," even, at times, among those who call themselves Christians. In her punchy and accessible new book, Natasha Crain helps Christians embrace this calling while resisting the false assumptions that surround us. Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture is a terrific guide for those who wish to maintain Christian identity and confidence in the face of pervasive secularism. Of course, the first step to faithfully living as a worldview minority is to establish that we are, in fact, a minority. After all, Pew Research's Religious Landscape Study still shows that around 65 percent of Americans identify as Christians. However, surveys that look at actual beliefs give a clearer picture of what's going on. In her interview with my colleague Shane Morris on the Upstream podcast, Natasha pointed to the recent results of the American Worldview Inventory, conducted by George Barna and Arizona Christian University. According to that survey, just 6% of Americans hold a "functional biblical worldview," meaning they gave recognizably Christian answers to questions like, Who is God? and What are human beings? and Is there absolute truth? Among respondents between the ages of 18 and 29, only 2% had a functional biblical worldview. This kind of extreme minority status means there is constant pressure on Christians to live in a secular way and to hide beliefs that our neighbors find unbelievable. Even worse, there is strong temptation to join in the cultural scorn on historic Christian faith, following the example of the many authors, entertainers, and pastors who have publicly "deconstructed" their former faith. Faithfully Different is a clarion call for Christians to intentionally push back on this pressure. In twelve rich but readable chapters, she identifies and challenges the primary assumptions held in our secular culture and reasserts the Christian alternative as a better way to understand the world. In full disclosure, Natasha asked me to write the foreword for Faithfully Different, and I did so gladly after reading it. Here's a portion of what I wrote: All humans are, in many important ways, shaped by cultures. Our fashions, tastes, beliefs, and so many other things about us reflect the social environments into which we are born and live. In fact, a culture is most powerful in shaping us by what it makes seem normal. If you've ever traveled to another country, you've likely experienced the feeling of, seemingly, being in a different world. You're not, of course. You're in a different culture, a place imagined and built differently by a different group of people. This is what humans do. We build worlds within the world. In recent decades, the Western world (which include the United States) has shifted in dramatic ways. Things once unthinkable are now unquestionable. Beliefs and behaviors once unimaginable now seem so, well, normal. Christians who aren't discerning will quickly find themselves embracing things that are wrong. That's why this book, Faithfully Different, is so important and, if you read it carefully, will be so helpful. Natasha is a clear thinker and a captivating writer, with this knack of explaining things most essential, such as worldview and culture. Not only does she help her readers understand what they need to know, she helps them act in ways faithful to truth. As parents of four kids, my wife and I are big fans of Natasha's previous books. As someone who has spent the last two decades studying worldviews and culture, trying to convince Christians to take both seriously, I'm a big fan of this one, too. Faithfully Different covers an incredible amount of crucial ground without cutting any corners. It's one of those rare books that is both faithful to biblical truth and honest about our cultural situation, a work of sound cultural analysis from a solid, and distinctly Christian worldview. It's just so very helpful. I hope you'll pick up Natasha Crain's timely new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture, and listen to her interview with Shane on the Upstream podcast.

John and Maria discuss a recent situation where Neil Young pressured Spotify to remove Joe Rogan from their lineup due to what is being discussed on his show about the coronavirus. John explains how this situation is a sample of our society's loss of trust in many institutions. He shares why institutions are important for a flourishing culture and offers a short course from the Colson Center. The course explains how institutions are important and how we can rebuild trust that is informed and has significance for culture shaping. Maria then asks John to explain a recent commentary on technology that paints a picture to how and why Christians should be involved with technology as it guides and impacts society. Maria also asks John to further explain a commentary on how the word "parent" is being redefined and what that does to those closest to the redefinition, children. -- In Show Mentions -- The Loss of Trust and Our Crisis of Authority: A Christian Response>> Psaki cheers Spotify warning on COVID podcasts, says 'more' should be done White House press secretary Jen Psaki applauded Spotify Tuesday for adding disclaimers to podcast episodes that discuss COVID-19 — before adding "there's more that can be done." The New York Post>> The new moral majority comes for Joe Rogan. Last week, Canadian-American rock god Neil Young made a clarion call against free speech. Displeased by The Joe Rogan Experience's Covidian contents, Young demanded that Spotify remove Rogan's podcast—or remove him. Days later, Young's music was off the platform, though you can still stream his songs on Apple (ignore their forced Uyghur labor in Xinjiang) and on Amazon (but don't read about the company's infamous working conditions in James Bloodworth's book "Hired.") Common Sense>> God is no Luddite, and We Need Not Be Either In the broadest sense, God created humanity with the capacity to structure and organize life, and steward the world He created. The tools we create to do this are good, as they serve these ends. A strong clue lies in the book of Revelation, where history, which began in a Garden, is culminated in one of humanity's own sociological innovations: the city. BreakPoint>> Redefining 'Parent' is Bad for Kids As Christians, we accept that the One in charge of the definition of "parent" is the One who created the process by which we become one. However, whether or not we are Christians, biology requires a man and a woman to create a child, even if some find these mechanics of reality discriminatory or unjust. Despite our best attempts to separate sex from procreation, which Obergefell codified into law, it simply cannot be done. Same-sex relationships cannot produce children. Children need both a mother and a father. These things remain true even if the God who created the world this way is rejected. At the same time, the Bible acknowledges that the desire for children is both natural and good. God repeatedly honors that desire throughout Scripture, sometimes despite biological challenges like age or infertility. And, at other times, God does not give the gift of children, even to those who desperately desire them. BreakPoint>>

So many indications reveal just how much young men are struggling in our culture… mentally, spiritually, and relationally. And new research reveals how much women are struggling, too. A recent survey from The Roots of Loneliness Project found that middle-aged women reported the sharpest rise in loneliness when the pandemic lockdowns began in 2020. According to The Wall Street Journal, women in this group, particularly moms, spend a lot of time on social media but feel increasingly stressed and isolated. At best, social media "connections" can only supplement embodied community, but they cannot be a replacement for it. Because women aren't as likely as men to act out in violent or destructive ways, their struggles can go unnoticed. Moms are in a uniquely challenging spot. Though rarely alone, they are also rarely around other adults. This survey is a good reminder that moms should make time for adult community without feeling guilty for it. And, it's a good reminder for dads and the larger Church body: Don't forget about the moms.

Twenty-six years ago, Wired magazine co-founder Kevin Kelly made a $1,000 dollar bet with author Kirkpatrick Sale. The wager was about whether or not, by the year 2020, society as we know it would have collapsed entirely. Back in 1995, Sale was known for his critique of the internet, which was just starting to overhaul daily life. His book Rebels Against the Future praised the Luddites, a group of English textile workers who opposed industrialization by aggressively destroying the technology that made it possible. Sale's premise was similar. "If the edifice of industrial civilization does not eventually crumble as a result of a determined resistance within its very walls, it seems certain to crumble of its own accumulated excesses and instabilities within not more than a few decades, perhaps sooner." That was just too much for Kelly, a dedicated tech-optimist who had spent most of a decade living in remote parts of Asia before becoming the founding executive editor of Wired in 1993. That experience had given him new appreciation for both human culture and technological progress. It ultimately led him to oppose Sale's pessimism. "I saw completely vehicle-less cities—people throwing garbage in the streets, no toilets. So when people were talking [about] getting rid of technology, I was like … no no no, you have no idea." In 1995, Kelly interviewed Sale and sprung his trap. Pulling out a check for $1,000, he wagered that in 25 years the world wouldn't even be close to the kind of disaster Sale predicted: total economic collapse, war between rich and poor nations, and environmental catastrophe. Their mutual publisher would decide the winner. In January of last year, the bet was settled. Even in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, there was no real debate about who had won. The challenges of the modern era aren't trivial, but even Sale had to reluctantly agree that society had not collapsed. Kelly's interview with Sale not only makes for a fascinating read, it's a helpful springboard for Christians to think about the role of technology in shaping worldview. First, while Sale's claims seem far-fetched in hindsight, there's a voice like his in every generation. In the 1960s, it was Paul Ehrlich's infamous book The Population Bomb, which predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve due to overpopulation. Ehrlich wasn't just wrong about that prediction: His ideas were disastrous fodder for totalitarian regimes worldwide, justifying forced sterilization in places like Mexico, Bolivia, and Indonesia or the one child policy in China. The same fear persists even today, whether from an all-consuming "climate-anxiety" or the misguided belief that simply making fewer babies will solve the world's problems. But Christians should know better. While actively and responsibly caring for the planet, it's our duty to resist philosophies that come at the expense of infinitely valuable human lives. This is based in Christian confidence: We know how the story ends. Second, a Neo-Luddite outlook assumes that technology, not human nature, is responsible for the world's evils. This, too, is on the rise in our day by a romanticization of life in the distant past, based on the idea that humanity's ancestors lived in a state of harmonious bliss with the Earth and each other. This doesn't just miss the point: It encourages a quixotic fight against humanity's tools, while ignoring their souls. It's here that we need clarity. Innovation hasn't ruined humanity's idyllic past, but it cannot give us an idyllic future, either. As Neil Postman wrote in his excellent book Technopoly, "Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that." For evidence, we need only look at digital communication. The same technology that allows us to make video calls to friends on the other side of the world can keep us from looking our own children in the eye. One survey reported more than 1 in 3 Americans reported feeling lonely, either "all the time, or almost all the time." Better methods of communication can help people stay in touch, but it can't make that communication meaningful. It can even make us too busy or too distracted to see the real needs of those around us. In the broadest sense, God created humanity with the capacity to structure and organize life, and steward the world He created. The tools we create to do this are good, as they serve these ends. A strong clue lies in the book of Revelation, where history, which began in a Garden, is culminated in one of humanity's own sociological innovations: the city. In other words, God is no Luddite. We need not be one either. A truly Christian worldview celebrates the beauty of innovation, while maintaining healthy skepticism about any and all utopian promises.

As Kate Shellnut with Christianity Today writes, "Evangelicals under 40 are twice as likely as their seniors to want more substance from the pulpit." She's referring to a new survey on church satisfaction from Grey Matter research group. Not only do 3 in 10 evangelicals want more in-depth teaching, but the strong majority are happy with how their church handles even tougher topics like giving or politics. It correlates with a 2017 Gallup poll, which showed that 83% of Protestants consider learning about Scripture as the main reason they attend church. That outpaces other worthy things like kids' programming, musical worship, or social opportunities. Of course, making churchgoers happy isn't the ultimate metric of the Christian faithfulness … but that might be exactly the point. Strategies to make church relevant and interesting have to be grounded in the main thing: the truth of God's word. Watering it down isn't just unfruitful or unwise: It's a bad retention strategy.

In case you haven't heard, Major League Baseball is in the middle of a lockout. Later this week, the players' union will meet with team owners to negotiate on new contracts, hopefully in time for spring training. Imagine, if all of this haggling over salaries and contracts and terms happened without the players being at the table? What if MLB team owners were negotiating with sportscasters or concession stand workers or third-base umpires over the terms and million-dollar conditions of the baseball players' contracts, but the players were not welcome? It's an absurd notion. Negotiations cannot work unless all of the key stakeholders are in the room. And that's the exact scenario right now at a very different negotiating table. In 1973, states began considering, with many eventually passing, something called the Uniform Parentage Act. The legislation codified a legal definition of the word "parent," which more or less aligned with reality: "Parent" meant the biological parents of a child, regardless of whether they were married. (This solved prior legal questions over the rights of so-called "illegitimate children" when it came to their fathers.) The 1973 version of the act also declared that the term "parent" could apply to an adult who'd gone through the legal adoption process.more or less aligned with reality: "Parent" meant the biological parents of a child, regardless of whether they were married. (This solved prior legal questions over the rights of so-called "illegitimate children" when it came to their fathers.) The 1973 version of the act also declared that the term "parent" could apply to an adult who'd gone through the legal adoption process. In 2002, as assisted reproductive technologies were becoming more popular and sophisticated, several states started to update their Uniform Parentage Act. The definition of "parent" was stretched to include adults with no biological relation to a child or legal adoption papers, but who had obtained the child through sperm donation, egg donation, surrogacy or some combination thereof. The negotiations didn't stop there. Despite promises by activists, lobbyists, and judges that gay marriage had everything to do with consenting adults and nothing to do with bearing children, the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges renewed calls to revise the Uniform Parentage Act again. As Katy Faust, Founder and Director of the children's rights organization Them Before Us predicted, "When you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become optional in parenthood." That's the way many legislators saw it, too. After Obergefell, multiple states revised the legal definition of "parent" under their Uniform Parentage Act again. In these states, unmarried same-sex partners of people with a child can be legally recognized as that child's parent, even without going through the adoption process. Many of these states also allow something called "pre-birth orders" in surrogacy, which allows the couple paying a surrogate mother to apply for legal custody of that mother's baby up to three months before the birth. It's not just that the stakeholder with everything to lose in these negotiations—the children—aren't at the negotiating table, their rights aren't even considered. If the Church is to continue its long history of defending and protecting children, especially in eras of extreme sexual exploitation, we'll need to pay attention to this issue, show up for them, and demand their rights are considered. As Christians, we accept that the One in charge of the definition of "parent" is the One who created the process by which we become one. Whether or not we are Christians, biology requires a man and a woman to create a child, even if some find these mechanics discriminatory or unjust. Despite our best attempts to separate sex from procreation, which Obergefell codified into law, it simply cannot be done. Same-sex relationships cannot produce children. Children need both a mother and a father. These things remain true even if you reject the God who created the world this way. At the same time, the Bible acknowledges that the desire for children is both natural and good. God repeatedly honors that desire throughout Scripture, sometimes despite biological challenges like age or infertility. And, at other times, God does not give the gift of children, even to those who desperately desire them. This tells us that despite the real pain of childlessness, children are not a right. They are, as the Bible calls them, a blessing. They come when God wills;. When we venture outside His created design for children, whether through assisted reproduction or redefining the word "parent" to reflect adult desire, we intentionally sever a child's relationship to either their mother, their father, or both. By treating children as our "right," we violate theirs. If our culture persists in negotiating the rights and terms of children's' lives, children deserve a seat at th

John explains the reason the Colson Center is involved in the group Evangelicals and Catholics Together. A listener asks what the group does and what recent developments have come out of the organization. Shane pushes John to answer a question from a listener he knows about praying for one's enemies. And to start the show John outlines the challenges present in China's worldview after a listener asks for clarity on a video he shows to his students. -- Resources -- Making Sense of Your World: a Biblical Worldview John Stonestreet, Bill Brown, & Gary Phillips | Sheffield Publishing Shelby Houston Speech at Father's Funeral Emanuel Mother Emanuel Documentary The Ring Makes all the Difference Glenn Stanton

"If liberty means anything at all," wrote George Orwell in the original preface to Animal Farm, "it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Recently, the University of Northampton demonstrated where they stand on that matter, adding a trigger warning to another iconic Orwell book 1984. Students are now warned that Orwell's seminal critique of totalitarianism, censorship, and thought control might contain material some find "offensive and upsetting." You just can't make this up. For the record, strong evidence indicates that trigger warnings do not prevent feelings of trauma and can even have the opposite effect of heightening emotional vulnerability to potentially scary or offensive content. On a much deeper level, we're simply walking in the way Orwell warned against. It's the dark side of an expressive individualism devoid of any deeper truth. Eventually, embracing an ideology that tells us to create our own realities will only lead us to cancel anyone who threatens them.

There's a new genre of literature that most people have never heard of: "hopepunk." Coined in 2017 by fantasy author Alexandra Rowland, "hopepunk" was a reaction to a different kind of writing dominating the market that year, a genre that Rowland and others refer to as "grimdark." Grimdark emphasizes the cruelty that so often defines human interaction. Think, for example, of HBO's hit series Game of Thrones, a show which hit its highwater mark in 2017 and capitalized on a trifecta of gore, nudity, and nihilism. AMC's The Walking Dead and the more recent Netflix global hit Squid Game are also examples of shows that attempt to portray the very worst of human nature as graphically as possible. In contrast, "Hopepunk," wrote Rowland in a line that captured the attention of the internet, "is the opposite of Grimdark." And then she added, "Pass it on." After that post went viral, she elaborated further: "Hopepunk says that genuinely and sincerely caring about something, anything, requires bravery and strength. It's about demanding a better, kinder world, and truly believing that we can get there if we care about each other as hard as we possibly can." Since she invented the label, bloggers have retroactively applied it to works like Terry Pratchett's Discworld series and J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. In a sense, the term applies to works that attempt to answer a vital existential question of the human condition: Is there really any hope? This question is especially relevant in a culture experiencing record levels of depression and purposelessness. One source for ascertaining the hopefulness of a culture is its stories. Consider the Greek myth of Pandora's Box, penned by Hesiod in 700 B.C. In it, the gods place all of the world's evils in a box and give them to Pandora, the first woman. When she cracks the lid, they escape into the world and the jar is emptied, except for one thing: hope, which is captured before it can escape. The story raises a haunting question: Was the hope left in Pandora's box a good, or an evil? Is hope legitimate, or is it merely a trick of the gods designed to induce more suffering? The Stoics believed that hope was foolish. Anticipating future joy leaves humanity vulnerable to all kinds of disappointment and miscalculation. As Seneca wrote, quoting his friend Hecato, "Cease to hope, and you will cease to fear." This makes sense in a worldview where neither nature nor the gods are particularly benevolent. All that remains for humanity is hedonism, the ancient ideal of a heroic death, or a joyless, gritty stoicism. Within a secular worldview, the challenge remains. How can there be any real hope if there's no God, or any basis for ultimate things such as purpose, right, wrong, good, evil, reward, or justice? Indeed, if we do live in such a world where, as Bertrand Russell famously put it, "…Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins…" If Russell is correct about the world, it's hard to argue with his conclusion that "only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." In fact, two years after writing her viral post advocating "hopepunk," Rowland's idea of hope seemed to have slipped toward cynicism. "Those are the words of a person cloaked in a story that hasn't yet been worn threadbare and ragged," she admits. One gets the sense that although she wants to hope, she just cannot find a reason to hope. Of course, the stories that originally inspired her to hope are grounded in a much better worldview. Unlike armchair nihilists like George R.R. Martin (whose books were the basis for Game of Thrones), J.R.R. Tolkien actually experienced the brutality of war. In the trenches of World War I, he lost all but one of his childhood friends, even while Western Europe was reduced to a muddy, hellish burial ground. That may have been, in fact, the inspiration for his fictional realm of Mordor. Yet, even in his grief, Tolkien believed in something deeper, a way things should be. Sam and Frodo stuck to their grueling quest to destroy the ring not from an existentialist "hope in hope itself," but from a full awareness that good and evil are real, nothing is accidental, and some things are worth fighting for. Years later, Tolkien would sum up his basis for hope in a poem. "The heart of Man is not compound of lies, but draws some wisdom from the only Wise, and still rec

In a recent essay, Oxford Professor Roger Crisp toyed with the idea that human extinction may not be a bad thing after all. With so much suffering on Earth, he argues, if NASA were to locate a massive asteroid hurtling towards our planet, we would be justified in letting it obliterate us. "I am not claiming that extinction would be good;" Crisp clarified, "only that, since it might be, we should devote a lot more attention to thinking about the value of extinction than we have to date." This is an Oxford philosopher of ethics, but he's wrestling with an idea that long ago left the ivory tower. Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute put it this way: "With our supposedly best minds suggesting that human extinction could be desirable, is it any wonder that so many of our young people seem to be despairing?" When God is taken out of the moral picture, reason evaporate, as does the rest of our moral logic. Someone tell Bruce Willis and the rest of his team from Armageddon, the mission is off.

In his book The Last Word, atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel talked about "the fear of religion": "… I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." This "cosmic authority problem," Nagel thought, was at the root of modern attempts to explain everything by science. Today, 45 years, and more than a few other factors later, has evolved into what might be called a "cultural authority problem." Its roots lie not only in the philosophical denials of God and His authority that Nagel wrote about but also in what Pope Benedict once referred to as "the dictatorship of relativism … which recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the 'I' and its whims as the ultimate measure…" And, of course, upon these ideological foundations, we've all had the experience of living in the Information Age, being forced to navigate a dizzying amount of information daily and the many voices constantly vying for our pocketbooks and attention (often by any means necessary). Even before the chaos of the last 24 months, there has been more than enough to spur on our collective distrust. Still, on top of all that, what social institution in American life hasn't failed us in recent years? The state, churches, education, corporations, big tech, news, even medicine… we don't trust any of them anymore. To some degree, skepticism of authority is understandable, even commendable. And, when healthy, it's a necessary ingredient of discernment, a skill required of anyone who wishes not to be brainwashed today. Increasingly, however, skepticism has been replaced by cynicism and is expressed in an immediate distrust anytime anyone tells us anything to think or do. This is not healthy or sustainable, nor is it a biblical way of thinking about authority. If we begin from a Biblical Story instead of the chaos of our cultural moment, we must grant that authority is a God-given feature of life in this world. Beginning with God, the ultimate authority, the Bible describes how God also ordained other authorities, especially His image-bearers. Of course, unlike God, all of these ordained authorities have been twisted and compromised by the Fall. At the same time, the fact that the Bible continues to recognize (even after the fall) both God's authority and the, should chasten us whenever our discernment is replaced by cynicism. And there's an awful lot of cynicism these days. Is it possible for Christians to be discerning without being cynical? If so, how? Are there ways to respect authority without being duped? Can we recognize the collapse of our institutions without wholly abandoning them, and perhaps seek to restore them? Christians must answer these questions as part of our cultural witness. Certain existential questions rise to the surface in specific cultural contexts. For example, at a time of tragedy, the question on the top of the cultural surface tends to be, where was God? At this moment, in a culture with a cosmic authority problem, the question is, who can we trust? To help us think through the cultural crisis of authority and the loss of trust, the Colson Center will be hosting a special virtual short course beginning next Tuesday night, February 8. Each of the sessions will feature a presentation and a time for live Q&A. The first three weeks will be led by Dr. Bruce Ashford and will cover the topics of "God's Authority and the Authorities He Has Ordained," "Where Did the Crisis of Authority and Trust Come From?" and "How to Cultivate Discernment in an Untrustworthy World." The fourth week will be led by Dr. Yuval Levin, a scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, who will help us think about the collapse of our cultural institutions and what it would look like to rebuild them. He's an example of a scholar who can inform Christians on how to think about life in this cultural moment. Each of the four sessions will be recorded and distributed to all who sign up for the course. To register for this course, "The Loss of Trust and the Crisis of Authority," please visit colsoncenter.org/events.

Os Guinness shared an important message at a recent Colson Center event in Phoenix, Arizona. He spoke to the situation of the church in this cultural moment, where institutions are failing and people are losing trust. Os offered a way forward, for Christians to ground themselves in truth, repentance, and forgiveness. Out of this event, the Colson Center is launching a short course on the loss of trust and our crisis of authority. Society needs a Christian response to the breakdown we are witnessing in nearly every societal institution. The church has an answer and to help encourage Christians with clarity, confidence, and courage in this moment, we are offering a special short course in February. For more information visit www.colsoncenter.org/events The Loss of Trust and Our Crisis of Authority

Recently, online magazine Fatherly sent out this prompt to their readers: "What would you tell your younger self about being a dad?" The answers are worth sharing. "It only gets better." wrote one 39-year-old from Vancouver. "I wasn't ready for my prior life to end until I held my baby on the first day…. There's a place for having fun while you're young, but don't think that's meant to be it. Life really starts to get good when you feel your children enjoying your presence and loving every minute, they spend with you." Another dad agreed. "Once you're knee-deep in the reality of raising a baby all the seemingly 'boring' milestones feel incredible." Of the nation's 73 million children, "1 in 4 live without a biological, step or adoptive father in the home," the National Fatherhood Initiative tells us. That absence is felt in every measurable category of child well-being. And it's a tragedy for men too. Our culture tells us that caring for others is a burden on our true happiness, but Scripture - and the wisdom of experience - tell a different story. Just ask the dads.

Anabaptist theologian Stanley Hauerwas once said that in 100 years, if Christians are known as those who do not kill their children or their elderly, we would have been doing something right. May we, in fact, be known for nothing less than these things, but I hope we'll be known for far more. Specifically, Christians must be known as those who acknowledge created reality, in particular the goodness of the human body. This won't be easy. Unthinkable a couple decades ago, it's now normal to deny the purpose, the meaning, and the goodness of the human body. Increasingly the body is seen, not as a given of reality, but as a fully morphable canvas of self-expression. Not only do we celebrate unnatural ways of using it, we see it as something to be reinvented and remodeled, even mutilated if that allows us to "be ourselves." Because Christians believe in a world created by God, including the human body, we must not allow what is considered normal to seem normal to us. We might be shocked and grieved, but we should always point to the truth of who we are, and oppose these ideas which destroy and degrade, rather than liberate, human beings. Any culture that denies what our bodies reveal about who we are must work hard to suppress the overwhelming evidence of reality. At times, like beach balls pushed below the water, this evidence re-emerges. For example, just before Christmas, New York Magazine released an issue with a cover photo of a person with a beard and body hair, wearing nothing but briefs, staring at readers. A massive scar dominates one leg. The headline reads: "My Penis, Myself: I didn't need a penis to be a man. But I needed one to be me." The person in the photo is a woman. The organ in question was surgically constructed using flesh taken from her leg. The author and subject describe her "transmasculine" surgery, performed in a San Francisco hospital, in full detail. The procedure was potentially life-threatening and involved physicians doing things that, in any other surgical context, would be considered harm, not help. The result of the surgery was not a male body, but a wounded and disfigured female body. The author is now in near constant pain, and in constant danger of infection or rejection. Even so, this dysphoric woman viewed the process as a liberation from her own body. By portraying this procedure as a surgery rather than an act of harm, and by portraying the choice to undergo the procedure as heroic rather than heartbreaking, New York Magazine bypasses any real discussion about a host of related ideas, ideas about sex, gender, humanity, morality, medicine, and more. At the same time, the cover photo, of a largely exposed woman with horrific scarring, points to truths that, in the end, cannot be suppressed. This movement is, in reality, an assault on humanity. The bad ideas behind the movement leave victims in their wake. In a sort of gnostic remix, these ideas reject the most basic of created realities. Christians, who believe that God called our bodies "good," must continue to point to what is true. First, we must point out that there are very real scars left when people deny reality. And second, we must point those with these scars to Christ, the One whose scars can make them whole again. Back in June, an episode of "Blue's Clues and You" earned applause for featuring a pride parade of LGBT-identifying animals. Only later did viewers notice that one cartoon beaver, waving a trans pride flag, had scars like those of women who've had what's called "top surgery." A Nickelodeon spokesperson confirmed that the producers' intent was to teach young children that this "surgery" is normal, and if women wish to have healthy breasts removed in order to mimic men, they should. To point out that this sort of message, aimed at children, is body shaming and abusive will inevitably mean being called "transphobic," "bigoted," and "hateful." We may be cancelled. But to be silent is not to be loving. Rather, it is to be complicit in harm. In this cultural moment, faithfulness to Christ involves not just declaring salvation but defending creation; not just preaching how men and women can be saved but that men and women exist. Churches will need to include extensive and thorough education on what it means to be made in God's image, why He made us male and female, and the difference that makes in modern culture. All of which will mean proclaiming obvious, now unfashionable truths. But, given the damage being done by denying those truths, it's the only loving thing to do.

Maria asks John to revisit a few commentaries from the week, specifically our piece recognizing Holocaust Remembrance Day and a new report on the state of Christians passing on the faith to younger believers. Then John explains the significance of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's retirement and what him stepping down does to the court. He also explains how President Biden will likely respond, based on campaign promises. To close, Maria asks John about a recent comment from author Jordan Peterson who made a startlingly insightful observation about the Bible. John shares why Jordan Peterson is a person Maria should recognize and care about and why this comment is important to consider. -- Show Stories -- Holocaust Remembrance Day Christians, in fact, should always be quick to counter any hatred or desecration poured out on any of our fellow image bearers, including those through whom God revealed His Word and brought His Son into His world. Having met on the 80th anniversary of Wanassee Conference, the European Coalition for Israel, issued a Declaration entitled: "Fight Antisemitism, Protect Jewish Life." It's worth a read, especially at a time when so much of the world seems at risk of forgetting. BreakPoint>> Passing On the Faith: Good News and Bad News "Human beings look separate because you see them walking about separately," wrote C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. But, "if you could see humanity spread out in time, as God sees it, it would look like one single growing thing-rather like a very complicated tree. Every individual would appear connected with every other."BreakPoint>> A Conservatism Without Marriage & Family Is No Conservatism At All Any political vision that treats marriage and family as optional or fungible, even if it goes by the label "conservative," is destined to fail. This isn't a matter of updating our definitions. If we lose our belief in marriage and the family as the foundation of a healthy and flourishing society, there will soon be very little left for "conservatives" to conserve.BreakPoint>> Stephen Breyer, pragmatic liberal, will retire at end of term As a justice, Breyer's demeanor and questions during oral arguments often conjured up comparisons to an absent-minded professor. One legendary hypothetical, in 2003, posited that a sign barring "all animals" from a park would not include a "pet oyster." A year later, in a case involving federal efforts to ban medical marijuana, Breyer raised the specter of "tomato children that will eventually affect Boston." But if Breyer – who majored in philosophy as an undergraduate at Stanford University – sometimes came across as an academic on the bench, he was at the same time both a member of the court's liberal wing and, as his former law clerk Kevin Russell told USA Today, "unapologetically pragmatic in thinking that it's the court's job to help make government work for real people." SCOTUS Blog>> How Biden will choose the next Supreme Court nominee With today's reporting that Justice Stephen Breyer intends to retire, we now kick off our analysis of potential nominees to replace him. President Joe Biden previously promised to nominate a Black woman, and we assume he will keep that commitment. Two potential nominees therefore stand apart from all others: Leondra Kruger, a justice on the California Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Both are well known to the White House team that will lead the nomination process. Kruger is a former Department of Justice attorney. Biden recently appointed Jackson to the court of appeals. SCOTUS Blog>> Jordan Peterson's Realization About the Bible "The meaning of the words is coded in the relationship of the words to one another. And, Postmodernists make that case, that all meaning is derived from the relationship between words. That's wrong, because what about "rage?" That's not words. What about moving your hand, that's not words. It's wrong, but part of it's right because the meaning we derive from the verbal domain is encoded in the relationship between words. So, now you think, "let's think about the relationship between words." Some words are dependent on other words and some ideas are dependent on other ideas. The more ideas are dependent on a given idea the more fundamental that idea is, that's a definition of fundamental. So now, imagine you have an aggregation of texts in civilization, and you say, "which are the fundamental texts?" and the answer is the texts upon which most other texts depend. So, you put Shakespeare's way in there because so many texts are dependent on Shakespeare's literary revelations. Milton would be in that category, and Dante would be in that category - at least in translation. (They're) fundamental authors, part of the western canon, not because of the arbitrary dictates of power, but because those texts influenced more other texts. Then, you think about that as a hierarchy, with the B

Last week, an Oklahoma state representative who describes himself as a "pragmatic progressive" announced on Twitter, "This week I filed HB3129, which codifies that a father's financial responsibility to his baby and their mom begins at conception. If Oklahoma is going to restrict a woman's right to choose, we sure better make sure the man involved can't just walk away from his responsibility." What he intended as a gotcha instead went viral with pro-lifers. They loved the proposal, and filled his feed with memes saying "your terms are acceptable." The only resistance to the law came from pro-abortion allies. Quickly and furiously, the lawmaker backpedaled with a follow-up tweet: "I understand how the language in my message and bill both hurt the cause instead of helping it, and I apologize for not being more thoughtful…." It's just amazing that so many still claim and so many still buy the whole "pro-lifers only care about babies before birth" nonsense, but they do. Which means, we must continue to refute this silly narrative, in both word and deed.

There's a new ad playing on radio stations in Ohio as part of a PR push called the Stop the Stigma campaign. The ad is a game show skit, where contestants must guess the biggest risk factor for substance addiction. One guesses "making bad choices" and gets the buzzer; another guesses "hanging out with the wrong people" and is also wrong. The right answer, we're told, is family history. Ohio officials said the ads are meant to encourage people to "practice empathy, not judgment" for people suffering from addiction. That's wise advice. And research does show there is a strong genetic component to addiction. But research also shows that making unwise choices and spending time with others who are making unwise choices also unequivocally contribute to addiction. In a similar vein, USA Today recently ran a story about the latest research on pedophilia, quoting scientists who say the sexual disorder is "determined in the womb" and therefore "misunderstood" by our culture. The implication is that when something evil is "inherent," it carries a different — or no —moral weight. The first mistake here is the suggestion that we can have empathy for or compassion on people who do something wrong only when they "couldn't help it." That's both naive and wrong. None of us is immune from sinful desires; that's the fall. But none of us is helpless against our sinful desires, either; despite genetic components or elevated risk factors — that's the redemption of Jesus. That's why the Bible tells us to "flee" from sin; even when sin "feels" natural. Paul tells the Galatians the desires of the flesh are in conflict with the Spirit. He doesn't say "therefore you are helpless." or "do good things to cancel out the bad." He says we must "crucify the flesh." Still, even when we lose that battle, God offers grace and forgiveness and commands us to do the same. People who do bad things deserve appropriate compassion and help not because they supposedly "can't help it;" but simply because they are human beings, made in the image of God. But we also deserve the dignity of facing the consequences of our actions. The second mistake in efforts to "stop the stigma" of bad behavior is the suggestion that those consequences, as well as healthy guilt and even shame, can't play a motivating role in our moral formation. The Bible testifies that it does. Friends of mine who have recovered from addiction or who are active in addiction ministry all say that the cliche is true: the first step to recovery really is admitting you have a problem. We block that important step if we try to convince those suffering that they bear no responsibility for their behavior. My friend Dr. Matthew Sleeth, and emergency room physician who wrote a book about the Christian response to suicide, spoke to our Wilberforce Weekend audience last year about his research. He said the common denominator that he found in testimonies from those who survived a suicide attempt or ultimately chose not to go through with it was that they believed, to one degree or another, that suicide would be wrong. But that assertion that something could be wrong requires a consistent moral standard against which we can measure our inclinations and behavior. Christianity - not cultural tastes - is the only worldview that offers a fully formed and consistent moral standard; built on God's design for the world. I want to be clear here that the chemical components, including genetic predispositions, and even outside factors like predatory pharmaceutical companies are very real contributors to things like suicide and addiction. But removing stigma by suggesting people aren't still responsible for their moral choices forfeits that very real and apparently motivating sense that we don't want to do something wrong. This is a casualty of a culture that continues to distance itself from its Christian moral foundation. Some theologians suggest the loss of "cultural Christianity" is good, in that it will reveal those truly committed to Jesus, as opposed to those only claiming Christianity for its social advantages. But the loss of cultural Christianity will still leave much to mourn, including the healthy social norms and stigmas, based on the Biblical moral standard, that protect us from our inherent sinfulness. Christians should always practice empathy. And we should be ready to help when and where it's appropriate. That kind of love holds room for healthy stigma, and it doesn't require pretending there are no consequences to our choices. That's the deep, consistent love of the gospel.

Most of the time, Twitter's a wasteland, a dark world of rancor, recriminations, and moral posturing. But every once in a while, to quote the classic movie Dumb and Dumber, it goes and redeems itself… Anthony Bradley, professor at The King's College in New York, recently noted on Twitter that most father/son photos on social media are of younger sons. It's like they stop once the boy hits teenage years, the time when a father's influence becomes most crucial in a young man's development. So he challenged dads to celebrate their teenage sons by posting photos with the hashtag #ThisIsMyBelovedTeenageSon. And proud dads, from all walks of life, did, proudly posing with their sons for all the world to see. Good for them. Popular culture portrays fathers in such diminished, negative ways, but studies consistently show not only that dads matter, but that they're essentially for flourishing. The full family of mom and dad is part of God's blessing to people everywhere.

Two weeks ago, in Colleyville, TX, a monster reappeared. Malik Faisal Akram walked into Congregation Beth Israel and demanded that the United States release a scientist connected to Al Qaeda. At first, news outlets and even the FBI seemed hesitant to ascribe any motive to the attack or even to name him. Yet, the assailant himself said, "I want to kill Jews." This sort of thing is far too common. As Social commentator Abigail Shrier described on Twitter: "10 years ago, my synagogue and my kids' Jewish school had no armed guards. Now, both have a near platoon of special forces guys. In the last 5 years, my kids' Jewish camp & my kosher grocer have hired armed guards b/c of threats. This is how Jews live now. Americans should know." Antisemitism has been a scourge of the human race since the ancient world. Too often throughout history, Christians have not only turned a blind eye but even took part themselves. That this still happens in America, even after the long shadow of the 20th century's greatest horrors, is incomprehensible. Each year, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the world takes stock of one its darkest moments. The Holocaust is among those historical markers that force us to face the reality of evil. Especially in a culture like ours, that too often thinks in "Dr. Evil" comedic caricatures, we must never forget the true potential of humanity. The Holocaust that was perpetrated by the Nazi regime is the most well-known horror of a horror-filled twentieth century. In many ways, it is now shorthand for the reality of evil in this world: eleven million dead, six million of these specifically targeted Jews. No discussion of the problem of evil or of the Second World War is complete without an extensive commentary on the realities of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen. Whatever it takes, we must never forget. Many in our generation first came to know the terror of this part of our history through films such as Schindler's List, Life is Beautiful, or The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. For others, it was a book assigned in school, such as The Diary of Anne Frank, Man's Search for Meaning, or Eyewitness to Auschwitz, where a narrator describes three years working in the crematorium. The Holocaust Museums in Washington D.C. and Jerusalem are also invaluable tools of our cultural memories. Even as we learn this history, we must also remind ourselves that this "enlightened age" is no less capable of great evil than our supposedly more primitive ancestors. The lie of moral evolution is a particularly pernicious and dangerous one. Future generations must know of the limits of the human condition, lest they too get lost in illusions of technological grandeur. After all, the Holocaust was not the work of some oppressed people, seeking to redress sins inflicted in the past. Neither was it done by backwoods, uneducated folks, so ill-informed about life that they lashed out against any and all who were different. This was done by citizens of what was arguably the most scientifically advanced and best-educated nation in the world at that time. As portrayed in an excellently unnerving HBO movie, Conspiracy, the leaders of German society, military, legal, and political, came together at what was called the Wannsee Conference, on January 20, 1942. They thought the matter through, planned, and then did it. Recently, on the 80th anniversary of that horrible gathering, religious and political leaders, both Christian and Jewish from across Europe and North America gathered to clarify why we must continue to oppose anti-Semitism in all forms, and to address the antisemitic ideas, laws, and spirit that is still alive and well today. As one German participant put it, "It is the duty of Christians to make the concerns of their Jewish compatriots their common concern." Christians, in fact, should be the first to condemn and counter any hatred or desecration poured out on any fellow image-bearer, including those through whom God revealed His Word and brought His Son into His world. At their meeting, on the 80th anniversary of the Wannsee Conference, the European Coalition for Israel issued a Declaration entitled: "Fight Antisemitism, Protect Jewish Life." It's worth a close read and our full consideration, especially at a time when so much of the world seems at risk of forgetting.

John and Shane field a question about where Christians find grounding for freedom. Then they discuss a few questions related to a recent commentary on death and dying before helping a listener process the rise in books that are challenging Christian history and tradition that are impacting the church. To close, John answers a question from a listener who asks for advice in raising a strong-willed child.

John and Shane field a question about where Christians find grounding for freedom. Then they discuss a few questions related to a recent commentary on death and dying before helping a listener process the rise in books that are challenging Christian history and tradition that are impacting the church. To close, John answers a question from a listener who asks for advice in raising a strong-willed child.

John and Shane field a question about where Christians find grounding for freedom. Then they discuss a few questions related to a recent commentary on death and dying before helping a listener process the rise in books that are challenging Christian history and tradition that are impacting the church. To close, John answers a question from a listener who asks for advice in raising a strong-willed child.

An eight-year court battle over a bakery cake in the United Kingdom is finally over. Earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights declined to hear the case brought by Gareth Lee, a gay activist who sued a Christian-owned bakery in 2014 after the shop declined to decorate a cake with the words "Support Gay Marriage." This leaves in place Britain's Supreme Court's 2018 ruling, which said the bakery didn't discriminate against the customer by refusing to print a message. This is good news. When Lee first sued the bakery he said publicly that their refusal to print the message made him feel like a, quote, "lesser person." This points to how vapid modern notions of identity have become. There are real consequences of disconnecting people from their Creator, and leaving them with no real reference point than their own self-expression. The Biblical idea of the image of God is so much better than anything else on offer in the marketplace of ideas.

"Love and marriage, love and marriage," crooned Frank Sinatra, "go together like a horse and carriage." Today, however, an ever-growing majority of Americans seem to think marriage is just as outdated as a social institution as a horse and carriage are as a transportation technology. And this includes those who have historically championed marriage as essential to a healthy and flourishing society. Overall, belief in the importance of marriage is at an all-time low. According to Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, just 29% of Americans say it is "very important" for a couple who have children together to be legally married. That's down from 49% in 2006. Given that, during those intervening sixteen years, marriage was both legally redefined and constantly assaulted by advocates of so-called "alternative" family models, these numbers aren't that surprising. Nor is it surprising that a strong majority of respondents now believe sex outside marriage and having a baby outside of marriage is morally acceptable. What is surprising is the dramatic shift in beliefs about marriage among those groups that have historically defended and championed the institution. Just 36% of self-identified Republicans now say marriage is "very important" for couples who have children together, compared with 62% in 2006. And, incredibly, only 41% of self-identified "conservatives" now agree with that statement, which is down 21 points since 2006. How did party demographics shift so dramatically over the last sixteen years? Did the "populist turn" of the party contribute to these discouraging numbers? Is this shift the cause or the effect of other policy shifts? Related research suggests that America has a growing "marriage divide." In other words, more and more working-class couples are choosing cohabitation over marriage, and seeing marriage increasingly as a kind of status symbol of the elite. And there's another divide too, the one between fiscal and social conservatives. That one has been growing for some time. On one side, there are those who merely want a smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient government. On the other hand, there are those who champion the ideals of life, marriage, and religious liberty. The label "conservative" is used to refer to those who hold one, the other, or both positions. What these Gallup numbers now indicate is that those who hold socially conservative positions, much less prioritize them, are getting rarer and rarer, especially among the young. This is not only a loss for those who care deeply about these social values, but also futile for those who think that a smaller government is possible without strong social institutions, especially marriage. Decades of research show that children raised by married parents not only enjoy better outcomes in almost every area of life, they tend to be more productive and able to self-govern. According to the Brookings Institute, children of married parents "do better in school, develop stronger cognitive and non-cognitive skills, are more likely to go to college, earn more, and are more likely to go on to form stable marriages themselves." This is not to say, of course, that every child from a married home succeeds. They don't. And there are, of course, many heroic single parents who successfully raise children in less-than-ideal situations and many heroic children who overcome incredible hardship as they grow into adulthood. Statistics are not destiny for individuals, but they are destiny for societies. Marriage is simply the best means of keeping both parents—especially fathers—involved in a child's life. And, the science is settled: moms and dads are irreplaceable, in different ways and for different reasons. In other words, marriage and the family help produce the kinds of citizens that make small government even possible. When marriages and families fail or decline, governments must provide all kinds of additional (and expensive) aspects to their social safety nets to make up for the terrible loss of this most basic institution. For a society to flourish, there is simply no substitute for the family. That's why it is an oxymoron to claim to be a conservative while downplaying the importance of marriage and the family. The reason is simple: marriage is a non-negotiable part of reality. It isn't something arbitrary or socially constructed, like a speed limit, which can be changed or expanded with little consequence. It's real, like gravity, built into the world, whether we recognize it or not. To ignore it is dangerous and, ultimately, futile. Any political vision that treats marriage and family as optional or fungible, even if it goes by the label "conservative," is destined to fail. This isn't a matter of updating our definitions. If we lose our belief in marriage and the family as the foundation of a healthy and flourishing society, there will soon be very little left for "conservatives" to conserve.

"The U.S. is facing an aging population, a shortage of caregivers, a dearth of affordable housing, and an increase in social isolation that threatens wellbeing," wrote Clare Ansberry in The Wall Street Journal earlier this year. It's true. Covid-19 only deepened an existing crisis for seniors, who were the most susceptible to both the virus and prolonged social isolation. A solution is desperately needed, but in the words of Ansberry, "some think what we really need is Magic." She's referring to an acronym, coined by geriatrician William Thomas, that stands for "Multi-Ability, multi-Generational, Inclusive Co-living." The idea is to build neighborhoods where "young and old, families and singles, live side-by-side, supported by inclusive design, technology, and neighbors." If that sounds like a good idea, it's because people were designed to live in intergenerational communities. It's a model that reflects a much older, much deeper design: the institution of the family. Not just parents and kids, but extended families are part of God's original design to protect and care for one another, especially as we age. With the breakdown of the family, that's something we've lost sight of. It's worth getting back.

"Human beings look separate because you see them walking about separately," wrote CS Lewis in Mere Christianity. But, "if you could see humanity spread out in time, as God sees it, it would look like one single growing thing-rather like a very complicated tree. Every individual would appear connected with every other." This punchy analysis is apt for, among other things, assessing the spiritual health of American Christianity. How people within a cultural setting think about and practice spirituality is interrelated. Statistically, the most significant relationship by far between spiritual belief and commitment is that of parents to children. That's always been true. However, especially in light of new data from the Institute for Family Studies, the struggle to pass faith from one generation to the next is more difficult than ever. Overall, the "tree" is not looking very healthy. "…the challenges of passing on the faith remain considerable," writes study author Jesse Smith. That's an understatement, but there is a silver lining: "…religious conservative parents are managing that challenge somewhat better than others." Accounting for other important factors - like the relative importance of religion to the parents and whether they "practice what they preach"- Smith looked at the role the substance of the religious beliefs played in transmitting them: things like a high view of the Bible, belief in objective morality, traditional sexual ethics, and a sense of tension with the larger society. In contrast to parents with more "liberal" or "moderate" beliefs, "children of religious conservatives are more likely to match the religiosity of their parents, and when they stray, they tend not to stray as far." Smith concluded that the primary reason for this success is that parents with more conservative spiritual beliefs took them more seriously and took a much more active role in their children's religious socialization. Therefore, they more frequently talked about God, prayed with their children, and engaged with a church community. "To pass on religion," wrote Smith, "parents need to make it a part of daily family interactions." Good advice. However, this study is no cause for celebration. Conservative parents may have an edge in passing faith down to their children, but they're still only "winning" at a game everyone is losing. For example, while Smith reports that only 15% of children from moderate or liberal families attend worship services weekly, the percentage of conservative families was just four percentile points higher, 19%. In the last year, 52% of children from moderate and liberal families did not attend a single church service entirely. Conservative kids fared only slightly better - 43%. The fact that 43% of religiously conservative kids failed to darken the door of a church even once last year should cool our celebration. More and more of this population are among those joining the religious "nones," or those who refuse to claim any religious identification. The overall number of "nones" has roughly doubled since 2007 and now represent 3 out of every 10 Americans. Of course, none of this is new news. Culture watchers have seen a religious decline in America for decades now. It's something we cover on Breakpoint frequently. Still, it's worth studying, again and again, especially by any Christian parent hoping to pass on healthy faith to their kids. One clear lesson is how seriously parents must take their role as disciple-makers's a common instinct to lean away from spiritual conversations, especially with teenagers who seem uninterested or annoyed. Not to mention, almost every voice in culture says students must be free to determine their truth and identity. All of which makes talking to teens intimidating, especially in a culture increasingly hostile toward Christian beliefs and ethics. But from this data, Smith strongly cautions against thinking that a "light touch" on religious matters is enough to keep kids in the fold. His conclusion is blunt. "If kids do not receive a clear and consistent message from their parents that religion is important, they are likely to simply conclude that it is not important." (emphasis mine) At the same time, what a parent does also plays an essential role in their child's spiritual outcomes. By living out Biblical convictions, frequently talking about spiritual issues, and being willing to live in counter-cultural ways, parents convey that faith matters. As much time and effort goes into making church relevant and attractive to young people, a better strategy would be for churches to invest heavily into parents and family, equipping parents to disciple their kids. The best place to start is in our own homes.

If you've spent any time at all on the Internet talking about controversial political subjects, chances are someone has told you to "do your own research." In theory, reading up on a topic before giving an opinion is a good idea. But as James Ballantine and David Dunning write at the New York Times, it's not always so easy to get good information online. A little bit of reading, especially reading purposely selected to reinforce our biases, can convince us we know a lot more about a subject than we do. Dunning is one of two social scientists who named the Dunning-Kreuger effect, or the "beginner's bubble." It's the illusion someone has after reading an article or watching a video that they have mastered a subject. And it's become an Internet-wide problem. Echo chambers are not somehow superior to ivory towers. The same ease of access to information online that allows us to "challenge the status quo" also enables us to find the answers we want to see, whether or not they are really true. So beware the bubble, and remember the wisdom of humility.

One quote in Steve Garber's excellent book on education, The Fabric of Faithfulness, has always stood out to me. It comes from a Duke University graduate and offers an important observation, an indictment really, about higher education. "We've got no idea of what it is that we want by the time somebody graduates. This so-called curriculum is a set of hoops that someone says students ought to jump through before graduation. No one seems to have asked, 'how do people become good people?'" In other words, simply amassing a large collection of classes, buildings, resources, books, and other so-called "hoops" does not an education make. What's missing in the whole enterprise is an idea of what an educated person would look like if the process worked. This "thinking with the end in mind" is just as necessary for any church, Christian school, or other Christian organization committed to discipleship. On most of our websites, we use language to communicate our commitment to discipleship, but how clear are we on what a disciple is? Do we have a clear enough vision of what a disciple looks like in order to contextualize and guide all of our programs, books, sermons, teaching series, small groups, and other discipleship tools that we so often employ? Imagine launching a new computer company but not having an answer to questions such as, "What kind of computers will you make? What will they look like? What will be unique about your computers compared to others? What kind of functionality will they have?" To respond to these questions with, "Well, I have no idea, but I bought a bunch of computer parts, and I'm going to put them together" would be absurd. (And, there's a Johnny Cash song that comes to mind…) This is why a Christian worldview is so important. The Biblical vision for discipleship only makes sense within the larger Biblical vision of reality. In other words, discipleship is far more than having a sense of spirituality, or a sense of meaning and purpose, or a set of Christian habits, or even "feeling close to God." Discipleship is living life under the rule and reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is sovereign not only over how we ought to behave but over the entire cosmos. In The Faith, Chuck Colson wrote, "Orthodox Christianity, alone among worldviews, provides a stop to the inertia of time through the renewal of the soul and the regeneration of people that transforms cultures." Chuck understood that disciples are those who have been transformed by the renewing of their minds so that they actively engage the world around them with the heart and mind of Christ. They see others as Christ does. They seek to obey Christ in every area in which He has authority, which is every square inch of His creation. Twenty years ago, Chuck Colson created a program to replicate this vision of discipleship within Christian communities everywhere. Through the Colson Fellows program, Christians would think deeply about life and the world through a Christian worldview, and seek to follow the Lord in every aspect of life and culture. Rather than a Christian faith turned exclusively inward, the Colson Fellows program turns faith outward. Underlying the Colson Fellows program is a framework that begins with understanding reality in light of the full scope of the Biblical account of reality. This account can be understood in four chapters—creation, fall, redemption, and restoration—and it stands in stark contrast to other worldviews. So, Colson Fellows dig deeply at the Christian worldview, and they study the alternatives. This is an essential step if we are to, like the men of Issachar, "understand the times and know what to do." Another critical part of the Colson Fellows framework is understanding the Biblical doctrine of the imago Dei as the fundamental identity of human beings. This is particularly critical to understand in light of the crucial issues that confront followers of Christ in this cultural moment. A deep dive into this idea enables the kind of response we need to have as Christians, one that goes beyond mere reactionism and outrage. Finally, every Colson Fellow, after spending a year in a committed learning community, articulates a plan for living out what they've learned. Each of these plans is built along the lines of intentional Gospel-shaped questions that connect the reality of the Kingdom with the calling we have to our cultural moment. This year, nearly 750 people have been studying with us in 60 different learning communities across the United States and beyond. Lord willing, they'll be commissioned as Colson Fellows at the Wilberforce Weekend in May. And when they are, by God's grace, they will be committed to their Lord, to His truth, to loving their neighbors, and to His church. Applications for next year's Colson Fellows class, which begins this summer, are currently being accepted. For more information, visit www.colsonfellows.org.

John unpacks a number of recent commentaries from BreakPoint, specifically highlighting the march for life and a hero we profiled, Dr. Mildred Jefferson. John also discusses a new report from the New York Times which suggests that many prenatal tests give false positives more often than they produce an accurate diagnosis. John then discusses death and dying and how we as a society struggle to think carefully about such matters. He highlights two recent commentaries the outline how the Christian worldview offers great hope and framework to deal with mortality. To close, John shares the latest report from The World Watchlist on the state of Christianity and religious freedom worldwide. He highlights the stress on faith around the world and challenges Christians in America to pay attention to the plight of brothers and sisters in the faith worldwide. He also explains the importance of practicing and defending faith in our culture where we may not feel the stress of traditional persecution.

Many churches have shut their doors in the face of Covid, but one large church in Denver hasn't just shut their doors; they've sold them. According to Christianity Today, "The Potter's House Denver will sell its property in Arapahoe County and continue to worship exclusively online." We often hear that because the Church isn't a building, it doesn't matter whether it meets in one. But trading in-person worship for an online experience misses what the Church actually is. It isn't just a place for individual contemplation on "spiritual things." That's not the Christianity of the Bible but the pietism of Gnosticism. Embodied worship is an essential part of a Christian worldview. If our faith is the sort of thing we can live it out alone, never needing the presence of others, then are we truly still the Church? The Church is the ecclesia, the called ones, the gathered ones, the community of the saints of God. If we aren't a "we," we are not the Church.