Breakpoint

Black Friday is less a day this year and more of a couple weeks, so we might not see the normal chaos from WalMart and Best Buy. Folks not trampling each other over smartphones and flat screen televisions is an improvement, of course, but the idol of stuff still claims socially distanced hearts and minds too. One way is through the artificial perfections of Pinterest, Instagram, and Facebook. Pictures of perfectly decorated homes and Instagram-worthy holiday celebration videos with perfectly behaved children doing a lip-synch has become another distraction within a season meant for holy reflection. Sunday begins the season of Advent, a time set aside in the history of the church for prayer, charity, and even fasting, to prepare us to celebrate the birth of Jesus and to point our hearts toward His return. Over the years, we've compiled resources for Advent, to prepare our hearts and minds to celebrate Christmas. Come to breakpoint.org.

Black Friday has been different the last few years. Shelves aren't as stocked as we're used to, especially after the supply chain debacle. Instead of a single day of sleep-deprived consumers trampling security guards for flatscreen TVs, we endure weeks and weeks of online over-marketing. While the presumed decrease in physical violence in stores certainly is an improvement from what we're used to on Black Friday, the lack of material goods available to attempt to fill the voids in hearts and minds is another. Historically, Christianity offers something better to occupy our hearts, minds, and conversations, over and above the experience of getting all of our shopping together before December 25. This Sunday begins the season of Advent, a time set aside in the Christian calendar to reflect on the coming of Jesus into the world. The Latin word adventus, from which the word "Advent" is derived, literally means "coming." Advent places Christ's first coming into the world, in a manger in Bethlehem, within the larger historical context of redemptive history. It highlights the long promises of God to send His Messiah. At the same time, Adventus is the Latin translation of the Greek word parousia, which is used repeatedly in the New Testament to describe Jesus' second coming, when He will return in glory at the end of the age. Before this usage by Paul and other New Testament authors, parousia referred to the emperor's arrival in a city or a province. When notified of his coming, citizens would scramble to properly greet this very important person, preparing great feasts and dressing in their finest clothes. The original readers of the New Testament not only would have understood parousia in this context, but they would also have seen it as an explicit rejection of Caesar's claim to lordship. While Christians today think and talk of the lordship of Jesus Christ in personalized terms, such as "Have you made Jesus Lord of your life?" the earliest Christians understood it as a public, definitive, and risky proclamation. In other words, to say "Jesus is Lord" is to say "Caesar is not." By using parousia to refer to someone other than the emperor, Christians were saying something about who was really in charge. This backdrop is essential to understand why so many early Christians became martyrs. Rome would tolerate various and eccentric religious beliefs and practices. At times, they'd even incorporate alternative religious celebrations and beliefs into their own. What would not be tolerated, however, were rival allegiances. Nearly two millennia later, Christians must still clarify their allegiances. We, too, are tempted to give ourselves to would-be Caesars. Our false gods may be more subtle, but they exert power over our thoughts, imaginations, and loyalties. Unless we are intentional, we will worship them. While our would-be lords rarely demand, at least in overt terms, that we deny the lordship of Jesus, they are most effective in distracting us from thinking about what the lordship of Christ means and requires. That's why honoring this season of Advent can be incredibly helpful. It invites us to prepare to greet the One who is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation," through whom "all things were created." We, too, are asked to prepare through prayer and generosity. We, too, are invited to array ourselves in our "finest," not garments but in our most refined expressions of truth, love, compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. To prepare our hearts and minds this way, not only to remember Christ's first coming but to anticipate in hope His second coming, is every bit as culturally subversive today as it was two-thousand years ago. It's a way of living as if Jesus is Lord. Because He is. Join me in marking Advent this year. As a guide through this season, our writing team has created reflections on the various worldview themes created by Advent. To get a copy of these reflections in a beautifully orchestrated e-book, as well as other resources, visit www.breakpoint.org/advent.

Gratitude is on our minds as we celebrate Thanksgiving. Practicing thankfulness, we are looking back to an interview John conducted with Peter Leithart, president of the Theopolis Institute and author of "Gratitude: An Intellectual History." How did Christianity change the West's understanding of gratitude? And how can we Christians in this age of profound ingratitude and entitlement reinvigorate the virtues of gratitude and thanksgiving in our own lives and in the culture around us?

We've all seen "A Charlie Brown Christmas," in which Charlie Brown messes up the Christmas play and Linus reminds everyone what Christmas is all about. Another of my favorites is "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving." Poor Chuck's friends show up expecting a feast, but he and Snoopy serve them jelly beans and popcorn. Thankfully, Linus is there again to tell the true story of Thanksgiving. But it's Marcie who reminds Charlie Brown that the Pilgrims at Plymouth didn't come to dinner expecting to receive something. They were there to commemorate what they'd already received—life, provision, and friendship with the Wampanoags. We're better off today than they were, yet many of us will sit around the Thanksgiving table grumbling and fighting about politics. If Linus and Marcie were thankful for Charlie Brown's leftover Halloween candy, can't we take one day to thank God for our blessings? Hopefully you won't have jelly beans and popcorn for dinner, but I do hope you enjoy some Peanuts this Thanksgiving.

A Christian worldview not only points us to what is true, but it also places us, historically, in the redemptive history of God's creation. In fact, there is no such thing as "secular" history. The history of the world is God's redemptive history - that is, history can only be understood within the larger creative and redemptive work of God in Christ. That's a long way to introduce today, Thanksgiving, but it's an important framework for understanding how God has moved and worked in human history. Years ago, on Thanksgiving, Chuck Colson told one such story in a BreakPoint commentary. Here's Chuck Colson: Most of us know the story of the first Thanksgiving; at least we know the Pilgrim version. But how many of us know the Indian viewpoint? No, I'm not talking about some revisionist, politically correct version of history. I'm talking about the amazing story of how God used an Indian named Squanto as a special instrument of His providence. Historical accounts of Squanto's life vary, but historians believe that around 1608, more than a decade before the Pilgrims arrived, a group of English traders sailed to what is today Plymouth, Massachusetts. When the trusting Wampanoag Indians came out to trade, the traders took them, prisoner, transported them to Spain, and sold them into slavery. It was an unimaginable horror. But God had an amazing plan for one of the captured Indians, a boy named Squanto. Squanto was bought by a well-meaning Spanish monk, who treated him well and taught him the Christian faith. Squanto eventually made his way to England and worked in the stables of a man named John Slaney. Slaney sympathized with Squanto's desire to return home, and he promised to put the Indian on the first vessel bound for America. It wasn't until 1619, ten years after Squanto was first kidnapped, that a ship was found. Finally, after a decade of exile and heartbreak, Squanto was on his way home. But when he arrived in Massachusetts, more heartbreak awaited him. An epidemic had wiped out Squanto's entire village. We can only imagine what must have gone through Squanto's mind. Why had God allowed him to return home, against all odds, only to find his loved ones dead? A year later, the answer came. A shipload of English families arrived and settled on the very land once occupied by Squanto's people. Squanto went to meet them, greeting the startled Pilgrims in English. According to the diary of Pilgrim Governor William Bradford, Squanto "became a special instrument sent of God for [our] good . . . He showed [us] how to plant [our] corn, where to take fish and to procure other commodities . . . and was also [our] pilot to bring [us] to unknown places for [our] profit, and never left [us] till he died." When Squanto lay dying of fever, Bradford wrote that their Indian friend "desir[ed] the Governor to pray for him, that he might go to the Englishmen's God in heaven." Squanto bequeathed his possessions to the Pilgrims "as remembrances of his love." Who but God could so miraculously convert a lonely Indian and then use him to save a struggling band of Englishmen? It is reminiscent of the biblical story of Joseph, who was also sold into slavery, and whom God likewise used as a special instrument for good. Squanto's life story is remarkable, and we ought to make sure our children learn about it. Sadly, most books about Squanto omit references to his Christian faith. But I'm delighted to say that my friend Eric Metaxas has written a wonderful children's book called "Squanto and the Miracle of Thanksgiving." I highly recommend it because it will teach your kids about the "special instrument sent of God," who changed the course of American history. Of course, the story of Chuck Colson is also a story of "a special instrument sent of God." One of the things that I and all of my colleagues at BreakPoint and the Colson Center are thankful for, is how God redeemed Chuck's heart and mind, re-aiming him to a life of humble service for prisoners and their families and teaching us to think and live like Christians. And we are thankful for the encouragement and support, so many of you offer through prayer, notes, emails, social media comments, and gifts of support. Thank you for listening to BreakPoint. And from all of us at the Colson Center, have a blessed Thanksgiving.

INC.com's Jeff Steen has a new technique for anxiety management: schedule time to worry. Setting aside time to consider what worries us, he writes, clarifies our fears. It reminds us of what's important, what we can do about it, and (most importantly) what we can't. It's something he's encouraged business leaders to do for years, and it's seen results. There's a biblical term for Steen's technique: prayer. If that sounds cliché, it might be because we've lost one of the main things prayer is meant to be. "Cast all your anxiety on him," writes the Apostle Peter, "because he cares for you." The Psalmist also puts it beautifully: For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation. He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be greatly shaken. We aren't meant to muscle through our anxieties, but to bring them to God. That's important - because as good as Steen's advice is, it's still only self-help, a speaking into the void. Christians have something just as good and even better. We have Someone listening on the other end.

Z-ers Identify as LGBT." That was a significantly higher number than reported in previous years. Then, last month, a new survey released by Arizona Christian University reported that about 39 percent of 18-24-year-olds claim the label. Even granting that polling data should always be taken with a grain of salt, that's a shockingly high number. And, in addition to challenging Christians about how much the culture around them has changed, these numbers also challenge the way people have been taught to think about sexuality and, specifically, cultural assumptions about sexuality. For years, a main idea driving activism around sexual orientation was that gay and lesbian people were "born this way." Since, went the argument, no one is attracted to someone of the same gender through any fault of their own, we must let them be who they truly are and love who they want to love. And we must, the argument continued, erase any notion that heterosexuality is "normal" and homosexuality is not. The idea proved persuasive, especially the more it was portrayed in song, film, and television. Millions went to research looking for the genetic causes of same-sex attraction. Though it was never found, professional activists did successfully conflate sexual decisions with the already protected classes of race, sex, and disability. Even as it has become increasingly common to claim that sexual orientation is fluid, the old idea that it was an innate, unchangeable component of identity already served its purpose, shifting the moral norms of society. So, today, most Americans either believe that sexual orientation is something none of us get to choose or is something nobody should question. However, polls like this one should make us question what many in our culture now take for granted about sexual orientation. Otherwise, how can anyone account for the explosion in self-identified LGBTQ youth? The obvious answer is: we can't. We either have to keep foolishly pretending that nearly 40 percent of young people have always been gay, lesbian, bisexual, or (especially now) transgender, or we must admit that our ideas about sexuality have consequences for others. After all, it didn't take long for the other letters in the ever-growing acronym to jump on board this remarkably successful strategy. So today, anyone who defies traditional "sexual norms" is given elevated moral status, considered to be "experts" on all kinds of things, and given a free pass. Is it any wonder young people want to join those ranks, at least on a subconscious level? As one of my colleagues pointed out the other day, a teen who identifies as "bisexual" doesn't have to do anything different to gain a status boost. They can keep dating people of the opposite sex or not date at all. They can be sexually active or not. It's the label that does the magic. It's no accident that the B and the T in the acronym have seen the most growth. Even if the social costs of these ideas are lower than ever, the consequences for young people who adopt them are severe. For one thing, young people are constantly being taught to see every relationship they have as potentially sexual. This robs them of platonic friendships, especially with members of the same sex. CS Lewis famously wrote that "few value (friendship) because few experience it." This has become even more true today, with the loneliest generation on record. To be clear, people's sexual desires almost never feel "chosen." The research has not fully eliminated all biological or genetic factors in same-sex attraction, though there's no justification for treating it as immutable, much less treating gender dysphoria that way. However, given all of the cultural pressure to assume such, it's foolish to think that simply believing the right things about sexuality could eliminate someone's same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. To put it differently, this generation has been thoroughly catechized into anthropological confusion, literally changing the definitions of normal and abnormal, of moral and immoral, of who we are and what we do. In turn, the choices young people make create, reinforce, and amplify their sexual feelings. It's a vicious cycle that mirrors the Apostle Paul's words, "To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace." Though the Gospel doesn't promise instantly repaired sexual desires, it does tell us to "be transformed by the renewing of [our] minds." In a culture obsessed with sex, drowning in loneliness, and careening towards self-harm, it's good news that renewing our minds is even possible. We must point a generation of confused youth toward the compassion and clarity of this much better story as if their lives depend on it. Because they do.

I received an email from Oklahoma Wesleyan University entitled "Five Questions You Should Ask on Your Next College Visit." The suggestions are good, but given the dismal state of higher education, here are five more. First, why am I going? Too many 18-year-olds are signing up to pay $20,000 a year without knowing why they're there - something the nation-wide 40% dropout rate confirms. Second, what ideas are assumed here? Given today's world, students expecting an education (practical skills, critical thinking, and knowledge) can end up receiving an indoctrination: a barrage of subliminal messaging and social pressure designed to make them conform. Third, can I defend my beliefs? Recognizing bad ideas takes work: defending good ones can be even harder. Christian students need to know the reason for the hope they have. Fourth, how will I live like a Christian here? - because the Kingdom of God is not a matter of mere talk but applied power. Fifth, are there others like me? - because Christians shouldn't be isolated and a strand of three cords is not easily broken. For Christians, college is worth asking questions about. What are yours?

This Sunday marks the beginning of Advent. It's the season historically "set aside by the Church to help believers prepare to receive the fullness of Jesus' coming." The word "coming" refers both to Jesus' Incarnation and "His return as the 'Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory," who will "send his angels to gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." On BreakPoint a few years ago, I said that "walking through this season of Advent in prayer, scripture, and devotional readings have been a huge blessing to my family, to my church, and to me personally." That's definitely still the case. Today I want to explore the relationship between the observance of Advent and our worldview. When most Christians think about worldview (if they think about it at all), what comes to mind are ideas. Worldview isn't less than ideas, of course, but it is more. Bill Brown, Gary Phillips, and I define worldview as the framework of fundamental beliefs that give us a view of and for the world. That framework includes ideas, our imagination, habits, and the fundamental stories—both cultural and personal—that shape our lives. We live out of these stories—they give us, as N. T. Wright puts it, a "way-of-being-in-the-world." The historian Robert Louis Wilken wrote in First Things that "The Church is a culture in its own right. Christ does not simply infiltrate a culture; Christ creates culture by forming another city, another sovereignty with its own social and political life." What distinguishes this culture from the non-Christian world is not some kind of physical separation, or even a spiritual withdrawal, but, to borrow Wright's phrase, a "way-of-being-in-the-world" that's different. According to Wilken, three hallmarks of this "way" were the distinctive Christian uses of space, time, and language. First, Wilken writes, "We should not underestimate the cultural significance of the calendar and its indispensability for a mature spiritual life. Religious rituals carry a resonance of human feeling accumulated over the centuries." He continues, "The season of Advent . . . is a predictable reminder that the Church lives by another time, marked in the home by a simple ritual, the lighting of a violet Advent candle set in an evergreen wreath on a dark evening in early December." Sacred seasons like Advent, "run at right angles to the conventional calendar [and] they offer a regular and fixed cessation of activity." They become "times of reflection and contemplation that open us to mystery and transcendence." What's more, these special days on the calendar provide the "gift of leisure," a much-needed respite from "the world of work and money and minding our p's and q's," as Wright puts it. Only if we truly understand those cultural forces that shape our worldview can we intentionally open ourselves to the possibility that there is a way of being in the world that is both countercultural and transformative. That's why this season can be so helpful. To prepare our hearts and minds, join me in marking Advent this year. Our writing team has created a series of reflections to guide the various worldview themes that are present during advent. To receive these resources, simply visit www.breakpoint.org/advent.

The top baby names for 2021 are now posted. You've got the "Let's be different" parents spelling "Jaxon" with an X or every vowel with a Y, and Disney fans naming their kid "Raya." Of course, there's the gender-neutral fad with nature words like "River" and "Willow." Some are claiming "Ezra" is also gender-neutral, but I doubt the Old Testament prophet would agree. Still, it is interesting how many Biblical names keep cropping up. According to one list, seven of the top ten boy names this year come from the Bible – Noah, Elijah, Lucas, Levi, Asher, James, and Ethan. If you think back about these Apostles in their day, they were nobodies… no power, no wealth, no future, some were even put to death. But we all know people named Matthew, Esther, John, James, Paul, Peter, Mary, Thomas, Elizabeth, Joshua… people who, by the world's standards were failures, but who are still remembered to this day.

There's been a transformation in how our culture talks about sex. Since the 1960s, under the banner of so-called "sexual liberation," the dominant message in movies, television, politics, and even advertising was that sex needed to be set free from traditional and repressive rules. The symbols of this liberated sexuality were naked or nearly naked bodies—usually female bodies. More recently, some of the women who were reduced to mere bodies under the guise of liberation have come forward to reveal how they were degraded and dehumanized. The latest is 30-year-old model and actress, Emily Ratajkowski. In her new book My Body, Ratajkowski claims that she was sexually assaulted while filming the music video for Robin Thicke's 2013 song "Blurred Lines." In the uncensored version of that music video, a 21-year-old Ratajkowski appears topless along with several other young women. Thicke and his co-star rapper, Pharrell, leer at the young women, wrapping their arms around them while singing lyrics that critics have rightly slammed as suggestive of rape. At the time, Ratajkowski called her appearance in the video empowering. Not anymore. Earlier this month, in an interview with The Times of London, Ratajkowski admits that her success as a model and actress was largely the result of this video. However, she now wonders if it was worth it. "I had succeeded by commodifying my body," she says. "So why was I so unhappy?" As a cultural artifact, "Blurred Lines" was revealing in more than one way. The very title suggests just how difficult it is to draw the line between the "liberation" sexual revolutionaries promised, and the sexual exploitation or even assault it often delivered. The only answer offered today is "consent," but stories like Ratajkowski's raise the question of whether young women barely out of high school and at the beginning of their careers can meaningfully "consent" when a rich and famous singer asks them to take off their clothes. The same could be said of actresses. Jennifer Lawrence famously revealed that she got "super drunk" on the set of 2016's Passengers before shooting a sex scene. Emilia Clarke became known for her role in HBO's Game of Thrones, a show that featured near-constant nudity and sex. Clarke later confessed that she felt scared and pressured to do those scenes, believing that her career depended on it. Dozens of similar stories have emerged from stars who say they were cajoled and bullied into showing more skin. And, lest we are tempted to place all the blame on directors and producers, it's clear who's buying what they're selling. A 2018 analysis found that popular movies feature 250 percent more female than male nudity. The pressure young women feel to disrobe for the camera comes ultimately from a public eager to watch. Still, it's tragically fascinating how sexual liberation is now forcing us to grapple with this question. Besides sending predatory entertainment moguls like Harvey Weinstein to prison, the #MeToo movement exposed how blurry the line is between sexual freedom and sexual exploitation. In the words of NPR, Hollywood is facing a "reckoning" when it comes to nude and sexually-charged scenes, even hiring so-called "intimacy coordinators" to navigate these tricky waters. But is it enough? I don't recall who first said it, but it's one of the best analogies I know. Sex is like fire. When kept in the fireplace, fire brings warmth and light and life. Once it jumps out of the fireplace onto the curtains, it brings death and destruction and is nearly impossible to contain. As our culture questions the consequences of the sexual revolution, it's also time to question the premise that as long as everyone consents, nobody gets hurt, and everybody has fun. It's clearly not true. As women continue to wrestle with the blurred lines of the sexual revolution and the industry that has long profited from them, Christianity has a lot to offer. As the Wall Street Journal notes, quoting historian Tom Holland, "What's happening with #MeToo is essentially an attempt to reimpose…Christian sexual morality." Having witnessed the destruction of unrestrained sexual impulses, many are now more open to the idea that sex belongs within boundaries. The boundaries Christianity proposes, such as lifelong marriage and chastity, will seem quaint, traditional, and unrealistic. But short of these crisp, solid lines are bad idea bound to have victims—victims who will be asking, like Ratajkowski, "Why am I so unhappy?"

John and Maria consider the long legal battle endured by Barronelle Stutzman. They highlight her faith convictions and discuss how this offers encouragement for Christians to live their faith in culture, following her example. Maria then asks John to explain why he highlighted the story of Ernie Johnson this week, after the passing of Ernie's son, Michael. John explains how Ernie's faith commitment is an inspiring lesson for Christians to simply and confidently trust the Lord. John also explains the ideas behind what he and Shane Morris wrote this week on "Luxury Beliefs," first defining what luxury beliefs are before revealing how they challenge culture. To close, Maria asks John to comment on a new university organized by both liberal and conservative thinkers as a referendum on bloated and ideologically driven university systems. John goes through the reasoning to develop what is being called The University of Austin, pointing to a recent story where Yale revealed they have as many administrators as students as a sample that we've lost the mission of education in our culture. -- Resources -- BreakPoint Advent Resources>> -- Story References -- Segment 1: The End of Barronelle's Battle For almost ten years now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the State of Washington have targeted an elderly, small-town florist named Barronelle Stutzman. The case began when Barronelle declined to serve a long-time customer's gay wedding. A few months ago, Barronelle, now 77, filed a request for a final rehearing of her religious liberty case with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of her business, Arlene's Flowers. This week, the ACLU offered, and Barronelle accepted, a five-thousand-dollar settlement. It's a surprisingly small amount, given how long Barronelle has lived under the threat of losing her business, assets, and life savings due to exorbitant legal fees and penalties.BreakPoint>> Segment 2: Ernie and Michael Johnson In 2015, because of a special edition of the ESPN Documentary series E:60, the world began to learn that Johnson was even more impressive as a dad than he was in the studio. Eric described it this way: Johnson and his wife, Cheryl, have four adopted children: Michael, who was born in Romania; Carmen, born in Paraguay; and Ashley and Allison, whom they adopted out of foster care. This commitment to adoption sets the Johnsons apart all by itself, but the story doesn't end there. Michael, 25, was born with a "progressive form of muscular dystrophy" and has been dependent on a ventilator for the past five years. BreakPoint>> "Luxury Beliefs" According to one Cambridge academic, permissive attitudes about sex, marriage, drugs, and religion are "luxury beliefs; more status symbols for cultural elites than blueprints for the way they live. Rob Henderson first floated the idea of "luxury beliefs" in an essay in the New York Post, later at Quillette, and most recently in a podcast. He argues that beliefs that tend to be disastrous for poor and middle-class communities have become the modern equivalent of buying expensive clothes or hiring servants. It's a way of showing off your wealth and signaling your status to fellow members of the upper class. BreakPoint>> Segment 3: We Can't Wait for Universities to Fix Themselves. So We're Starting a New One. Our project began with a small gathering of those concerned about the state of higher education—Niall Ferguson, Bari Weiss, Heather Heying, Joe Lonsdale, Arthur Brooks, and I—and we have since been joined by many others, including the brave professors mentioned above, Kathleen Stock, Dorian Abbot and Peter Boghossian. We count among our numbers university presidents: Robert Zimmer, Larry Summers, John Nunes, and Gordon Gee, and leading academics, such as Steven Pinker, Deirdre McCloskey, Leon Kass, Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, Joshua Katz, Vickie Sullivan, Geoffrey Stone, Bill McClay, and Tyler Cowen. We are also joined by journalists, artists, philanthropists, researchers, and public intellectuals, including Lex Fridman, Andrew Sullivan, Rob Henderson, Caitlin Flanagan, David Mamet, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sohrab Ahmari, Stacy Hock, Jonathan Rauch, and Nadine Strossen. We are a dedicated crew that grows by the day. Our backgrounds and experiences are diverse; our political views differ. What unites us is a common dismay at the state of modern academia and a recognition that we can no longer wait for the cavalry. And so we must be the cavalry. Bari Weiss Substack>> A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion Over the last two decades, the number of managerial and professional staff that Yale employs has risen three times faster than the undergraduate student body, according to University financial reports. The group's 44.7 percent expansion since 2003 has had detrimental effects on faculty, students and tuition, according to eight faculty members. Yale Daily News>>

Drug overdose was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control. From May 2020 to April 2021, an estimated 100,300 Americans died from an overdose. That's a roughly 30 percent increase over the year before, and officials believe this year could be even worse. Experts point to a few things to explain the deadly spike, including the flooding of the drug market by the extremely potent and dangerous synthetic opioid Fentanyl. But the pandemic lockdowns share the blame. Not only was the social isolation harmful to the mental health of many, but the lockdowns and the often illogical restrictions on medical care hindered addiction treatment. The drug epidemic isn't fun to debate on Twitter. It's not just another political football. It is an emergency. The Church has to step in here, and quickly - not just to help our neighbors who might be struggling, but to advocate on their behalf to our leaders. This is the pandemic that's not waning. We have to pay attention.

For almost ten years now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the State of Washington have targeted an elderly, small-town florist named Barronelle Stutzman. The case began when Barronelle declined to serve a long-time customer's gay wedding. A few months ago, Barronelle, now 77, filed a request for a final rehearing of her religious liberty case with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of her business, Arlene's Flowers. This week, the ACLU offered, and Barronelle accepted, a five-thousand-dollar settlement. It's a surprisingly small amount, given how long Barronelle has lived under the threat of losing her business, assets, and life savings due to exorbitant legal fees and penalties. Maybe the ACLU has finally seen their case for what it is: petty bullying. Or, maybe they think the optics of bullying a grandmother are just bad. Either way, Barronelle has wisely, I believe, accepted the settlement. Here's a review of the important facts of the case. In 2014, Barronelle told a long-time customer and friend that she couldn't create a floral arrangement for his wedding to another man. Throughout their many years of friendship, Barronelle had served this customer with her creative talents. However, due to her Christian beliefs about marriage, she couldn't, in good conscience, create an arrangement for this occasion. The friend said he understood the decision and asked for referrals for other florists. She recommended three. The two embraced, and then said goodbye. All was quiet until the Attorney General for the state of Washington saw a social media post about the incident and decided to sue Barronelle for discrimination. In 2015, a trial court found her guilty of violating Washington's anti-discrimination law. The Court also ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine and the ACLU's legal fees, and to no longer accept wedding business unless she agreed to also serve gay weddings. Her appeal to the state Supreme Court drew so much interest that oral arguments were held in a local college auditorium. The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Stutzman, citing Justice Anthony Kennedy's Obergefell language and even claiming that to not service a same-sex wedding is to "disrespect and subordinate" gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that floral arrangements weren't "speech" but instead "conduct," and that even if the state had violated Barronelle's right to free exercise, it was fair and legal to do so because they'd do it to everyone. In other words, they weren't just singling out Barronelle. From the beginning, Barronelle has been represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). In 2018, ADF appealed the Washington state court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. After finding the State of Colorado guilty of animus toward the religious beliefs of baker Jack Phillips in a similar case, the Supreme Court vacated the Washington State Court decision and ordered them to re-examine Barronelle's case. Not about to admit it had done anything wrong, the Washington State Court upheld their ruling against Barronelle. Last year, ADF appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a baffling move, the Court declined to hear her case. ADF asked the Court to reconsider, something that rarely happens after denial. Earlier this week, Barronelle accepted the ACLU's settlement offer. This means she can retire in peace, having more than earned the right to step off the legal treadmill and out of the media spotlight, which she never sought. And, to be clear, not once did she compromise or violate her conscience throughout this whole ordeal. Instead, her courage, kindness, and long obedience have laid the groundwork for the kind of legal resistance against coercion that will certainly have to continue. Barronelle now passes the baton in this important battle to protect religious freedom to the rest of us, especially to web designer Lorie Smith whose case could go before the U.S. Supreme Court soon. The 10th Circuit ruled last summer that the state of Colorado could compel Lorie's business, 303 Creative, to create websites with speech that violates her religious beliefs. It's impossible to know how many business owners, artists, and others have found the courage of their own convictions by watching Barronelle. Her saga has made it clear to the rest of us that this kind of thing can really happen in the United States, and to say that religious liberty is under threat in this country cannot be dismissed as hyperbolic fear-mongering. It's also important to note that Barronelle made her original decision not only out of her own beliefs, but out of her concern for her friend, Rob. Barronelle was not willing to aid and abet behavior that was damaging to her friend's soul. In other words, it is not only loving God, but also loving our neighbor, that will require courage in the days to come. For her faithfulness, obedience, and courage, the board of the Colson Center has unanimously selected Barronelle Stutzman as a co-honoree of the 2022 Wilb

Last year, the Loudoun County (VA) school board informed teachers they must refer to students by their preferred pronouns, and allow students to use restrooms that align with the gender they self-identify as. At a public school board meeting, gym teacher Tanner Cross publicly informed the board, out of love for his students, he could not comply. The board immediately retaliated by suspending him. Cross, with the assistance of the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed for a temporary injunction. He returned to the classroom to finish the school year with his students after a ruling by a lower court, which The Virginia Supreme Court later affirmed. Though the case against the damaging policy continues, on Monday, the State Supreme Court passed "a permanent injunction prohibiting it (the Loudoun County school board) from retaliating further against Cross." The board also agreed to "remove any reference to Cross' suspension from his personnel file and pay $20,000 toward his attorney fees." Cross refused to live by lies and has prevailed. But, as ADF Attorney Tyson Langhoffer said, "While we are pleased Tanner will be able to keep serving students…the concerns (about) the district's policy remain."

Back in 2016, my then BreakPoint colleague Eric Metaxas did something we don't typically do on this commentary. "We don't usually wish people a "Happy Birthday!" on the air, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. On August 7, one of the most inspiring and just downright likable people in American sports turned 60, Ernie Johnson of TNT. If you are unfamiliar with Johnson's work and his story, let me fill you in. Most people who have heard of Johnson know him through his work both as an announcer and a studio host. Between 1993 and 1996, Johnson, alongside his father, Ernie Johnson, Sr., was the TV announcer for the Atlanta Braves. In addition to his play-by-play work for the Braves, Johnson has also announced Major League playoff games, college and professional football, and PGA golf events, among many other things. But he's best known for his work in covering the NBA. He's the host of TNT's "Inside the NBA," which has won nine Emmy awards. Johnson and the show's regulars—Shaquille O'Neal, Kenny Smith, and Charles Barkley—good-natured trade insults and basketball insights. But what makes the show work is Johnson. His gentle management of hugely outsized personalities keeps the show from descending into chaos while keeping the fun quotient high. But it's more than astute people skills that make Johnson so special. As Charles Barkley said in a 2015 ESPN profile of Johnson, he has "uncommon courage and a pure heart." As a big basketball fan myself, I have long enjoyed the on-air chemistry and in-depth analysis of Inside the NBA. And, I agree that the show would not be what it is without Ernie Johnson. In 2015, because of a special edition of the ESPN Documentary series E:60, the world began to learn that Johnson was even more impressive as a dad than he was in the studio. Eric described it this way: Johnson and his wife, Cheryl, have four adopted children: Michael, who was born in Romania; Carmen, born in Paraguay; and Ashley and Allison, whom they adopted out of foster care. This commitment to adoption sets the Johnsons apart all by itself, but the story doesn't end there. Michael, 25, was born with a "progressive form of muscular dystrophy" and has been dependent on a ventilator for the past five years. Earlier this fall, Ernie Johnson talked about his son Michael in an inspirational speech to the Alabama football team. "For Michael to move any part of his body takes maximal effort," said Johnson. That maximal effort was why the basketball coach at Michael's high school wanted him to be a part of the team as, he said, the "five-foot-tall impact player with no vertical leap." He also wanted Michael to teach his team what it means to have a heart for others. It worked. In fact, by the time Michael was a senior, he had the entire high school saying "I love you" in sign language and, by wiggling a finger, "love you too." The impact that Ernie Johnson and his son Michael have had on those around was evident recently when, on an episode of Inside the NBA, it was announced that Michael Johnson had passed away at age 33. Shaquille O'Neal, Charles Barkley, and Kenny Smith spoke, through tears, about the honor of sharing the broadcast platform with Ernie Johnson, and the honor of knowing his son, Michael. Back in 2006, Johnson announced on-air that he was battling non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. After thanking his doctors, he described how he would get through it: "[my family continues], as we always have, in both good times and bad, to place our faith in Jesus Christ, and to trust God . . . period." Please join me in praying that this same faith will encourage and uplift Ernie Johnson, his wife, and their other children at this time; that they will know in time the peace only God gives, which surpasses our understanding. And that, in faith, they will rest in the confidence that they will see Michael again in the new heaven and new earth. And when they do see Michael in his new body, he will have a vertical.

Listeners write in this week asking how they can support students who are in public schools, what are the best C.S. Lewis books to introduce a new Lewis reader, and what resources are best for a small church youth group to teach worldview with. Additionally, John and Shane answer how to present worldview and apologetics in a personal way in a person's "voice", and how the image of God was marred after the Fall.

A California couple is suing a fertility clinic after discovering they gave birth to someone else's daughter. Apparently, there was a mix-up during their in vitro fertilization procedure in 2019. After a DNA test proved the mistake, the couple returned their baby girl to her genetic parents in return for their genetic daughter, whom they'd never met. It's a mind-boggling story about a tragedy made possible by a culture quick to accept technology based on if we can do something instead of whether we should do it. The focus of the news coverage so far has been on the parents, whom we're all meant to assume are the story's victims. While this was certainly heartbreaking for them, no one seems to be asking what this will do to the children. However we choose to engage assisted reproductive technologies, we will never do it well if our focus is on adult happiness over and above what is best for the children. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

Last week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) announced the "Pride Coalition." The coalition is a partnership with the "Log Cabin Republicans," an organization that describes itself as "LGBT conservatives and straight allies who support fairness, freedom, and equality for all." Although many find the move disheartening, it will only shock those who haven't been paying attention. Al Mohler once described the relationship between Republicans and evangelicals as a "marriage of convenience," with marriage, in this case, being a particularly painful and ironic metaphor. To be clear, the convenience in this marriage goes both ways. For many within the RNC, evangelicals are just one of several voting blocs, albeit an important one. For many evangelicals, the Grand Old Party (GOP) is simply a better fit than the alternative, given their stance on social issues like abortion, gender, and religious freedom. Then there are those from both sides taken in by what quirky French theologian Jacques Ellul called "the political illusion." When all problems and all solutions are reduced to politics, all hope rests in gaining political power. The challenge for Christians is always to keep straight what are the means and what are the ends. A decision to partner with an LGBTQ group only makes sense if the "end" is to regain political power. The same decision makes no sense if power is understood as the means, and something else, like limited government, is the end. The problem with this coalition isn't that some in the LGBTQ camp support a political party of limited government. That's been true for a long time. In contemporary politics' pragmatic exercise, it never hurts to have unexpected allies vote for your candidate. However, welcoming voters to a political party is different than creating an alliance with a group that wishes to advance its goals within a political platform. This particular coalition signals a change in the GOP's platform and party positions, as well as broader changes in what it means to be "conservative." A core element of the GOP platform has long been "family values." That's sardonic shorthand for an inconsistently expressed and lived-out set of political beliefs built around a traditional moral framework, especially the idea of the nuclear family being core and significant. The belief that marriage is between one man and one woman who get married and stay married is not a mere social construct but is actually essential for a healthy society and the wellbeing of the next generation. Therefore, it is the government's role to protect the family, not redefine it. The more the government protects the family, the more non-governmental entities can secure our future. Any moral consensus around the nuclear family is only possible if it rests on grounds other than government. That requires grounding for truth outside the government. Today, however, our culture is what Os Guinness calls a "cut flower society." We still have the trappings of so-called "family values," seen in Hallmark movies, Veterans Day parades, and Little Leagues, but there is no real moral foundation for the family. The quest for freedom is devolving into the pursuit of radical autonomy, especially in sexual matters. And now we're back to the RNC's decision. The GOP is mistaken to think that it is possible to be fiscally or politically conservative for long without being, on some level, culturally conservative first. You can't have limited government by embracing a redefinition of marriage and family, because the family is the only institution able to produce the kind of citizens able to govern themselves. Whenever family fails, it compels the state to step in. The Founders, for all their flaws, understood that. John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net." Chuck Colson was fond of saying: "The Kingdom of God will never arrive on Air Force One." Meaning, in many ways, that Christians cannot be politically expedient. We vote how we must, and do what we can, to love our neighbors in political ways, but we must not put our hope in candidates or parties as if they're the ends and our support is the means. In a Christian view, political ends simply aren't ultimate ends. Christians must maintain a clear-headed vision of the importance of social issues in the public arena. That means determining what is true theologically, first, and then letting political chips fall where they may. As my friend, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly put it, "We must, lovingly and winsomely, never stop contending for the things that matter to God." Family and marriage matter to God.

Young pro-choice writer Kathleen Walsh recently published a conversation about abortion she had with her mom. The exchange, which ran at "The Cut," is both fascinating and frustrating. Walsh's mom gets right to the point—the fact that the unborn are babies: "Whether you want it or not," she says, "doesn't change what it is." Walsh insists that "because it's in my body, it's still a part of me…it's not a person. It's a theoretical person." Her mom points to her daughter's own time in the womb: "Before I decided you existed," she says, "you still existed." "But it wasn't me," says Walsh. "I exist because you chose for me to exist." She doesn't seem to appreciate that she's only around to make this absurd argument because her mom rejected it. It's sad to hear someone so committed to abortion that she denies her own existence in the womb. But "theoretical persons" are the logical outcome of a worldview that says humans only have value if they're wanted. May this mother-daughter conversation have the opposite effect its author intended.

November marks a pair of important anniversaries, bookends to one of the darkest periods in human history. In the first week of November (often dated as October by the older Julian calendar) 1917, Russian revolutionaries under Vladimir Lenin overthrew the moderate socialist government of Alexander Kerensky and established the first Marxist regime. Almost precisely 72 years later, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was torn down, symbolically taking with it a diabolical worldview that had trapped and enslaved a third of humanity. You would think that, considering its extensive and deadly track record, the demise of communism would be celebrated by everyone: conservatives could rejoice in the casting down of a belief system intent on desecrating the wisdom from the past, and liberals could cherish the freedom from tyranny that the fall of the Wall represented. However, far too many people, particularly in academia, continue to see the legacy of Communism through rose-colored glasses. A few weeks ago, I mentioned the high school AP Government teacher in Sacramento who was suspended for encouraging his students to take up far Left activities. Hanging in his classroom was a poster of Mao Zedong who, if you recall, was responsible for over 50 million deaths in the 20th century. That's more than anyone else, including Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. While this may be an extreme case, it's unsettling how history's greatest killers are so often remembered. We've all seen the Che Guevara posters and t-shirts, a great irony itself given his views on race and sexuality, as well as, pun intended, the capitalization of his image. The selective memory goes beyond pop culture. According to the Acton Institute, about 30 percent of the rising generation has a favorable view of Marxism. How can an ideology that animated oppressive control over billions, inspired Soviet Gulags and East European secret police, and instigated mass starvations in Europe and Asia seem positive to anyone? Some blame can be placed on our lack of historical memory. It's been 32 years since the massacre in Tiananmen Square and the fall of the Berlin Wall. An entire generation of adults lacks a personal connection to Communism's horrifying history. Often, what little history we hear about the Cold War is filtered through pop culture, or delivered in a volatile mix of paranoia, nationalism, and ignorance. We'd do better to listen to voices such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or Ukrainian protestors, or Chinese dissidents like Bob Fu, who actually experienced the terrors of a worker's paradise. Another reason Marx and his ideals get a pass is that it's easy to romanticize a reality we can't see. When Nazism, Communism's evil twin, collapsed in the wake of war, its beliefs were repudiated before the entire world. Hitler's name and movement became shorthand for evil. His dreams died in the rubble of Anglo-American bombs and Russian tanks, and his crimes were exposed in court. Not so with Marx nor his disciples. Historians may comment on their crimes and their statues may be toppled after the fact, but Lenin, Stalin, and Mao died in their beds, secure in their power, without ever having to face defeat or the wrath of their victims. Without this, it's all too easy for those in the comfortable, capitalist West to imagine that they weren't as bad as they truly were. Finally, Marx slides in a culture that judges ideas on whether they sound nice. The Nazis literally had skulls on their caps. The Marxists, on the other hand, sold utopian dreams of bread and land and unity and equality and progress. They might have been sending millions to die in the Gulag for the crime of having a wealthy ancestor, but that's not what the Che Guevara fans of today think about. They're thinking about slogans that look great on a bumper sticker or a tweet, but those same slogans mean death and tyranny when put into practice. Perhaps the most important lesson we can take from this cultural folly is that when it comes to the ideas that populate our worldviews, it's not enough that they sound nice and feel right. Ideas wouldn't matter if they stayed in slogans and manifestos. But they don't. They grow feet and hands, drive armies and policy, and have consequences for real people in the real world. Too much is at stake to root our worldview in the latest recurring ideological fad. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have victims. We must not ignore the horror or the victims of bad ideas just because we found them on the road of good intentions. Intentions and worldviews are good only insofar as they are true.

According to a recent article in The Economist, the digital revolution is poised to "up-end the practice of macroeconomics." With so much life lived online, it's now possible to know nearly everything about an average person's consumer behavior - from the amount of produce they buy to what they are watching on Netflix. The technical term for this is "econometrics." In the extreme, it treats people like predictable robots. With enough data, the theory goes, we can reliably predict consumer behavior in any given scenario. It's one thing to predict purchases, but people should never be reduced to mere statistics. Maybe that's why The Economist warns that "The biggest danger (with this approach) is hubris." Like in Mao's China, reducing people to numbers dehumanizes them. The Christian worldview is bigger. People are not programmable cogs in a global marketing machine. We're not units of the state. We're more than just our material appetites, too. Humans are capable of glorious heights and catastrophic falls, made in God's image and in need of redemption.

Certain lifestyle choices strongly correspond to long-term success: staying in school; avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage; regularly attending church; and abstaining from drug abuse, heavy drinking, and risky sex. Decades of research show these choices correlate with physical health, economic prosperity, and personal happiness. They also correlate more with the traditional and religious sides of the values aisle. Tech billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and CEOs of megacorporations like Disney and the NFL tend to hold far more progressive views about sex, marriage, drugs, and religion. Along with media elites and progressive politicos, they often loudly reject those values that lead to health, wealth, and happiness. Why then do they not suffer the consequences of their views? According to one Cambridge academic, permissive attitudes about sex, marriage, drugs, and religion are "luxury beliefs, more status symbols for cultural elites than they are blueprints for the way they live. Rob Henderson first floated the idea of "luxury beliefs" in an essay in the New York Post, later at Quillette, and most recently in a podcast. He argues that holding beliefs that tend to be disastrous for poor and middle-class communities has become the modern equivalent of buying expensive clothes or hiring servants. It's a way of showing off your wealth and signaling your status to fellow members of the upper class. Having grown up in multiple foster homes before enlisting in the Air Force and later attending Yale, Henderson has personally experienced much of the socio-economic spectrum. He knows first-hand how destructive the progressive behaviors held in reverence by many elites are to ordinary people. In his attempt to reconcile these facts, Henderson turned to 19th-century economist Thorstein Veblen's theory of the "leisure class." According to Veblen, rich and connected people once advertised their status mainly through luxury goods—things that were expensive and served no practical purpose. Today, they've switched to expensive ideas, or notions about how to live which, if adopted by everyone, would wreck society. Henderson cites some of the luxury beliefs he has encountered among his Yale and Cambridge peers: "…when an affluent person advocates for drug legalization, or anti-vaccination policies, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or uses the term 'white privilege,' they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, 'I am a member of the upper class.'" These beliefs and others work as signals, he says, because if anyone but a privileged elite were to act on them, it would be disastrous. For example, polyamory is a lifestyle in vogue among wealthy liberals whose financial resources can bail them out of defaulted leases, surprise pregnancies, and therapy bills. When such behaviors are adopted by the less privileged, however, the results include spiraling poverty, disease, an epidemic of single motherhood, and suicide. The costs incurred by luxury beliefs, writes Henderson, are borne by ordinary people. Richard Weaver famously said "ideas have consequences," to which we add, "and bad ideas have victims." If God's design for sex, marriage, society, and the human soul are in fact built into the fabric of the universe, we can no more ignore them without consequences than someone can walk off a ten-story roof and ignore the consequences of gravity. Those who adopt "luxury beliefs" often have a parachute of trust funds, good lawyers, and social connections. Even so, as Nicholas Kristoff wrote a few years ago in the New York Times, many upper-class progressives don't actually preach what they practice, instead choosing to live fairly traditional, monogamous, drug-free, generally moral lifestyles… which makes their "luxury beliefs" even more like fashion accessories. In the end, however, the bill for luxury beliefs comes due. If Henderson and plenty of social scientists are correct in their analysis, it's usually charged to those who can least afford it.

Certain lifestyle choices strongly correspond to long-term success: staying in school; avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage; regularly attending church; and abstaining from drug abuse, heavy drinking, and risky sex. Decades of research show these choices correlate with physical health, economic prosperity, and personal happiness. They also correlate more with the traditional and religious sides of the values aisle. Tech billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and CEOs of megacorporations like Disney and the NFL tend to hold far more progressive views about sex, marriage, drugs, and religion. Along with media elites and progressive politicos, they often loudly reject those values that lead to health, wealth, and happiness. Why then do they not suffer the consequences of their views? According to one Cambridge academic, permissive attitudes about sex, marriage, drugs, and religion are "luxury beliefs, more status symbols for cultural elites than they are blueprints for the way they live. Rob Henderson first floated the idea of "luxury beliefs" in an essay in the New York Post, later at Quillette, and most recently in a podcast. He argues that holding beliefs that tend to be disastrous for poor and middle-class communities has become the modern equivalent of buying expensive clothes or hiring servants. It's a way of showing off your wealth and signaling your status to fellow members of the upper class. Having grown up in multiple foster homes before enlisting in the Air Force and later attending Yale, Henderson has personally experienced much of the socio-economic spectrum. He knows first-hand how destructive the progressive behaviors held in reverence by many elites are to ordinary people. In his attempt to reconcile these facts, Henderson turned to 19th-century economist Thorstein Veblen's theory of the "leisure class." According to Veblen, rich and connected people once advertised their status mainly through luxury goods—things that were expensive and served no practical purpose. Today, they've switched to expensive ideas, or notions about how to live which, if adopted by everyone, would wreck society. Henderson cites some of the luxury beliefs he has encountered among his Yale and Cambridge peers: "…when an affluent person advocates for drug legalization, or anti-vaccination policies, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or uses the term 'white privilege,' they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, 'I am a member of the upper class.'" These beliefs and others work as signals, he says, because if anyone but a privileged elite were to act on them, it would be disastrous. For example, polyamory is a lifestyle in vogue among wealthy liberals whose financial resources can bail them out of defaulted leases, surprise pregnancies, and therapy bills. When such behaviors are adopted by the less privileged, however, the results include spiraling poverty, disease, an epidemic of single motherhood, and suicide. The costs incurred by luxury beliefs, writes Henderson, are borne by ordinary people. Richard Weaver famously said "ideas have consequences," to which we add, "and bad ideas have victims." If God's design for sex, marriage, society, and the human soul are in fact built into the fabric of the universe, we can no more ignore them without consequences than someone can walk off a ten-story roof and ignore the consequences of gravity. Those who adopt "luxury beliefs" often have a parachute of trust funds, good lawyers, and social connections. Even so, as Nicholas Kristoff wrote a few years ago in the New York Times, many upper-class progressives don't actually preach what they practice, instead choosing to live fairly traditional, monogamous, drug-free, generally moral lifestyles… which makes their "luxury beliefs" even more like fashion accessories. In the end, however, the bill for luxury beliefs comes due. If Henderson and plenty of social scientists are correct in their analysis, it's usually charged to those who can least afford it.

John and Maria discuss a recent commentary on Haiti before exploring an article by Trevin Wax on the lean toward politics by progressive Christians. That discussion leads into a new development from the Republican National Commitee to create a "Pride Coalition". John shares the challenges this brings to the Christian worldview of politics.

I recently watched a video of Pakistani tribesmen trying cheesecake for the first time. I know that might sound random, but it was kind of awesome. Though "diversity" has morphed into an ideologically loaded buzzword, it was God's idea first. But His idea wasn't moral or cultural relativism. It was the beauty of difference, anchored in eternal, created truths about how He made us. In Amos 9:7, God asks the Israelites, "Are not you the same to me as the Cushites? [Did] I not bring Israel up from Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?" All people are made in God's image and all will one day answer to Him. Christ's Kingdom is composed of humans, redeemed and united under His authority. The image we glimpse in Revelation is beautiful because it is one of unity and diversity, where people of every "tongue, tribe, nation, and language" are gathered before the throne of God, all dressed in white for the wedding feast of the Lamb. And who knows, maybe we will all enjoy some cheesecake together there, too.

Martin de Porres was born in Lima, Peru, in 1579 - the illegitimate son of Don Juan de Porres, a Spanish nobleman. His mother, Ana Velázquez, was a freed African slave from Panama. When Martin was born with his mother's dark skin and features, Don Juan denied he was the baby's father. Don Juan abandoned Martin, his sister, and his mother while Martin was still a boy. Martin grew up in poverty and, because he was of mixed race, suffered social stigma. He attended school for two years until the age of 12, before apprenticing as a barber-surgeon. He learned to cut hair, bleed patients (in keeping with current medical practice), and to prepare and administer medicines. As a boy, Martin developed an active prayer life. He spent many nights praying to devote himself more completely to God. At 15, Martin committed his life to serve the church. Because Peru banned descendants of Africans and Indians from joining religious orders, Martin approached the Dominicans of the Convent of the Holy Rosary in Lima, asking to simply be a servant at the Convent. Initially, Martin worked menial jobs, helping in the kitchen and performing manual labor at the monastery. He cleaned the rooms of the Friars, earning the nickname "saint of the broom." He continued developing his prayer life and spiritual practices, receiving recognition for his humility, which enabled him to ignore insults he received for his mixed-race ancestry. Martin's diligence and spiritual growth attracted the attention of his superiors in the convent, earning him greater responsibility. When the leadership disregarded the law and invited him to become a lay brother in the convent, he refused the offer several times, thinking himself unworthy of the honor. Eventually, when ordered to accept the position, Martin reluctantly agreed. As a lay brother, many offices within the convent opened to Martin. He continued to work in the kitchen, but with his background in medicine, he also became the convent's barber and began serving in the infirmary. Martin was skilled as a healer and, unlike many in his profession, treated everyone with dignity, whether rich or poor, Spanish or native, free or slave. At one point, Martin took in a beggar covered with ulcers, putting the man in his own bed to care for him. When one of the brothers in the convent rebuked Martin for this, he replied, "Compassion, my dear Brother, is preferable to cleanliness." When an epidemic broke out in Lima, Martin focused his care on the Holy Rosary's sick but also had great compassion for the broader community. Fearing the epidemic would spread to the brothers, the head of the Dominicans in Lima forbade Martin from taking in more people. Martin sent the sick to his sister's house in the countryside and cared for them there. Martin's godly character, humility, and work in the infirmary birthed various stories of miracles. Whatever we make of these reports, there is no doubt of his compassion and skill as a healer. Martin also cared deeply for animals. He refused to eat meat and set up a shelter for stray cats and dogs at his sister's house. Because of his remarkable rapport with animals, images of Martin often depict him holding a broom, with a dog, cat, and mouse eating out of a shared dish at his feet. Martin's humility and frugality led him to wear his habits until they were completely threadbare, except for one fresh habit in his trunk, for his burial. During his lifetime, Martin was considered a living saint. After his death, many miraculous healings were attributed to him. Through discipline in prayer and faithful service, and by avoiding distractions, he strove for faithfulness, not success. Throughout his life, Martin exemplified Paul's words to the church in Corinth: "Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain."

On Saturday Night Live last week, in a sketch featuring "Goober the Clown," Cecily Strong ridiculed Texas' heartbeat law. Strong told her abortion story using "fun clown stuff" like balloon animals, a squirting flower, and a clown costume. The intent, I think, was to portray abortion as no big deal, not as dark and scary as it's made out to be, and to suggest that women shouldn't be forced to talk about it. But the sketch came across awkward and sad. Perhaps Strong's parody was actually rooted in her own deep pain. But if it's really no big deal, why wouldn't people be more excited about the freedom abortion supposedly brings? Perhaps the pain so many women feel after abortion isn't just from social stigma or new laws, but because of what abortion is: an act of violence perpetrated on both mother and child... which is why abortion is no laughing matter.

In 1974, philosopher Robert Nozick proposed a thought experiment he called "the experience machine." He hoped to challenge hedonism, the belief that the highest good in life is finding the most pleasure. Imagine a machine, Nozick said, that would simulate in our brains all the best experiences we could imagine. Nozick took for granted that, ultimately, people would choose the real experience over the machine-generated one. He believed people want to do things, not just have a fake experience of doing things. He also believed people were still hungry for a reality bigger than any man-made experience machine could provide. "We learn that something matters to us in addition to experience by imagining an experience machine and then realizing we would not use it," Nozick wrote. Apparently, Nozick never met Mark Zuckerberg. A few weeks ago, the billionaire founder of Facebook announced the company's new venture, "Meta." The idea is to create a world of simulations in which people can, broadly, live their lives. Zuckerberg imagines that, using VR technology, people would be able to "go to the office" or "visit family and friends" or do almost anything in simulated or half-simulated places. We could make digital offices, and buy digital art to "hang" on our digital office walls. We could buy digital clothes to wear to these digital offices, and once everyone else is using the "meta," we can meet them in some digital place without ever leaving home. According to the team at Facebook, it will be at least a decade before technology enables the launch of their metaverse, but Zuckerberg seems pretty confident that, all things considered equal, people will prefer it to the real thing. And, if anyone has the resources (not to mention a built-in base of ready-and-willing customers) to pull something like this off, it's Facebook. Of course, technological advancement is not inherently bad. In fact, this sort of technology is only compelling because of the technological habits we've already embraced, some good and some not-so-good. For example, the same technology that allowed us to work from home during the pandemic also tempts us to replace in-person relationships with online ones. One glaring problem with the metaverse idea is that it encourages us, at least implicitly, to forget our bodies. This is something made possible by a pre-existing condition. One irony of the sexual revolution is that by making bodily pleasure a central object of our worship, we treat the body as if it can be remade and molded into whatever our minds choose. In such a world, it's essential to remind each other that we are not just minds or feelings. Our bodies are much more than mere tools that serve or get in the way of our experience of the world. We worship as bodies and with our bodies. We serve others as bodies and with our bodies. And we make new people who are, in no small part, bodies - with our bodies. God secured our salvation by becoming flesh. Discernment on this front is crucial because culture often changes subtly. The metaverse isn't going to be theoretical one day and then a full reality the next. If it happens, it will be by degrees, and the process of acceptance is already in place: Technology makes something more convenient. We embrace it. Before long, what was convenient becomes unavoidable, and then necessary. Even if we personally opt out of the thing, it can still become an essential part of the cultural waters in which we swim. You may not have a Facebook account today, but Facebook is an integral part of how the worlds of commerce, politics, education, and, to a degree, even personal relationships, now work. If we're closer to plugging into Nozick's "experience machine" today than we were in 1974, it's not because we're somehow dumber. It's because the machine is being built a component at a time, and we find each part enticing and helpful. The tragedy is waiting to question each component of the machine until the day we wake up and find we're already plugged into it. Through this process, Christians need to stay consciously embodied. That doesn't mean we eschew every new technology. The key is to use technology in service to our flourishing as embodied souls, and to make sure we don't let that technology redefine what it means to flourish.

John and Shane discuss a recent article in The Atlantic by Peter Whener about the abandonment of Jesus' teachings by evangelicals. The listener asks how Christians should respond to these claims. John also answers a question about the Christian perspective with climate change and how Christians can respond to claims that they are responsible for deterioration in the environment. Shane then asks John why the term "virtue signaling" is cringe-worthy before John is asked to explain the relationships with the words worldview, epistemology, and theology.

In 2017, Yale researcher Michael Kraus discovered that the best medium for communication was voice-only. Scientists have a couple of theories as to why. First, voice-only is just less distracting. Especially in the age of Zoom, virtual communication means bombardment by images, web problems, and front-facing cameras. All of these make it harder to focus on people - and therefore empathize with them. But second, whereas visual clues can be misleading, it's harder for speakers to disguise how they're feeling in the tone of their voices. This suggests it's the tone we use, not our facial expressions, which are our biggest non-verbal giveaways. That lines up with how Scripture tells us to advance the Gospel, sharing the good news "with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." The beauty of the Gospel is that it doesn't just train our minds how to think, but our hearts how to feel. Christ's love lets us love others, in what we say as well as in how we say it.

Last week, at 34-years-old, baseball great Buster Posey retired. Drafted by the San Francisco Giants, he went on to help win three World Series. Retiring means leaving a $22 million paycheck on the table, and likely a multi-million-dollar extension to keep him in the Bay area for the rest of his career. Instead, the future Hall of Famer has exchanged his cleats and catcher's mitt for bibs, highchairs, two sets of twins, and family life. Many have noted Posey's healthy perspective on the game, which Posey credits to, among other things, Bible studies and chapel services. Because his identity is found in things bigger than his sport, he's been able to battle through hitting slumps, poor play, and injury. For example, in the press conference announcing his retirement, Posey talked about how his love of baseball came from his family. In his experience, the game united generations. When the Atlanta Braves won the Pennant a few decades ago, he shared the experience with his grandfather. At the same time, the reason the game had that kind of impact on his family because of the kind of family it was. Posey has described how much he admires his grandmother, appreciates his uncle, a pastor in Georgia, and finds inspiration from a relative who was a chaplain at Duke University. The faith formation he received as a young boy formed how he approached the game of baseball. This identity was further galvanized in 2011, when he broke his leg in a collision at home plate. Though the injury ended Posey's season on the diamond, it ushered in a new season at home. In August of that year, he and his wife Kristen welcomed twins to their home. Because of the injury, Posey was present for their birth. In the following season, Posey won a second World Series ring, this time with National League MVP honors. He earned another ring in 2014. Then, at the start of the 2020 season, shortened by the pandemic, Posey opted out of playing. Instead, he and his wife adopted a second set of twins, making them a family of six. Posey described that time at home during Covid using two interesting and "churchy" words: patience and forgiveness. How many guys have the patience or forgiveness required to choose daily life with a family of six over playing in the major leagues? What Posey experienced at home in 2020 must have done something to him. Something having to do with his choice to leave a career of fame, riches, and admiration in the Bay area for a life requiring more patience and more forgiveness in rural Georgia with a family of six. In the third century, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, wrote that Christians don't "speak great things, but we live them." This kind of transformed life, shaped by the work of Christ, is, according to Cyprian, enabled by cultivating habits in patience and repentance. For Cyprian, these habits included avoiding idolatry, learning Holy Scripture, studying and accepting the teachings of Jesus, memorizing Bible passages, fostering a culture of peace, learning faith by doing, imitating role models, and addressing practical issues from a Christian perspective. In his book, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church, Alan Kreider describes how this kind of Christian patience, cultivated in habits of living and empowered by Christ, fermented into the kind of transformative energy that changed the world around them. Perhaps something similar has happened for this thirty-four-year-old former Giants catcher. More than merely deciding to focus on his family, avoid injury, and live his best life now, we're seeing the trajectory that results from a life in which the calling to be a father is taken seriously, faithfulness is chosen over success, and character is shaped by the patient forces of family life. This kind of decision is never made in a vacuum; it results from the kind of discipleship that leads to what has been called "long obedience in the same direction." Buster Posey has chosen a life of forgiveness and patience over a career in major league baseball. His kids, his community, and his soul will be better because of it.

I heard recently of a retired nurse with a great tagline: "Everyone should have a job they truly hate, so that when they get a job they love they can actually appreciate it." America is going through what's being called the "Great Resignation," which is partly due to a bad understanding of work. On one hand are workaholics, enslaved to jobs as a source of meaning and identity. On the other hand are the perpetual adolescents, unwilling to commit to serious labor, and hoping the perfect job will just fall in their laps. Ironically, both attitudes come from the same wrong idea: treating work as our ultimate source of identity. A Christian view of work is better. Work isn't something to worship; it is one way we can worship our Creator. It's a way we give to the world, not just take from it. Seeing work as worship redeems even the most menial, thankless or toilsome jobs. As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians, "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters."

Last month, the Washington Post editorial board called for the U.S. government to intervene in Haiti. What this nation has endured in the last year alone is hard to fathom. High profile kidnappings, political violence including the assassination of its president, devastation from natural disasters, gang violence, new allegations of horrific abuse by U.N. troops… the list seems unending. Some nations achieve a level of stability that allows them to navigate crises like these. Haiti hasn't. In fact, its instability seems to make it a breeding ground for more calamity. The overall lack of long-term, measurable results from the now billions in foreign aid that have been poured into Haiti suggests that the problem isn't merely a lack of funding. Haiti occupies the western half of the island of Hispaniola. Claimed by France in 1665, the island's natural productivity helped make it one of the wealthiest colonies in the French Empire. By the 1780s, Haiti exported 60 percent of the coffee and 40 percent of the sugar consumed in all of Europe. Haiti's colonial masters were able to achieve such growth through slavery. The approximately 40,000 slaves that arrived on the island of Hispaniola each year made up more than one-third of the total Atlantic trade. Slave treatment was so brutal on the island that most slaves didn't live to see their 21st birthday. In 1791, Haiti became the site of "the largest and most successful slave rebellion in the Western hemisphere." Famously, the revolt kicked off with Vodou ceremonies, in which the inhabitants pledged themselves to the animistic religion. Thus, the Vodou belief system became part of Haiti's national identity. The Haitian Revolution was a long, bloody affair. Though successful in overthrowing the heavy hand of France, by the time it was over, much of the country's infrastructure and plantations had been destroyed. Haiti officially declared independence on January 1, 1804, becoming the second republic in the Western hemisphere after the United States and the first black republic in the world. However, the country faltered in the years that followed. Crippled by an assassination, the young republic descended into a political rollercoaster, fracturing and reuniting from the 1820s until today. Often, Haiti was exploited by foreign powers, who sought to pillage the nation through "Independence" payments or occupation. Today, Haiti's chaos seems perpetual, and our news cycle does little to humanize what's happening on the ground. Over $13 billion in aid has been poured into the island nation since 2010, and yet the need for disaster relief not only remains, it seems endless. After the recent kidnappings of 17 missionaries there, some Christians are even questioning the wisdom of engaging in dangerous missions in such an impoverished and volatile country. Before a question like that should be asked or answered, the reasons for Haiti's plights need to be understood. It is precisely here that Westerners have to set aside sentimentality and cultural relativism and accept that Haiti's problem isn't a lack of money or natural resources. Haiti's cycle of political corruption and dependence, together with animistic beliefs that date back to the country's founding, are. Back in 2010, my friend Darrow Miller of The Disciple Nations Alliance argued compellingly that Haiti, at root, has a worldview problem, both in the brutality Haitians suffered as slaves and the Vodou beliefs that marked its successful revolt. This week, Darrow joined Shane Morris on the Colson Center's Upstream podcast to further explain how Haiti's traditional worldview sees the universe as capricious rather than orderly and filled with unloving gods who need to be placated, showing the difference a worldview makes. These beliefs lead to "a culture of bribery and corruption," and "feed an attitude of hopelessness and despair." When fatalism reigns, from a worldview reinforced by a seemingly unpreventable string of national bad luck, people seek merely to survive the whims of droughts, earthquakes, and floods, rather than prepare for them. The reason that billions of dollars of aid, food, and well-meaning infrastructure work and missions have made little difference in the long run in Haiti is that the problem isn't, at root, a financial one. Too many of her citizens do not think of the world as a place that could improve, or their nation as one that could ever heal. But that does not imply, on any level, that we should give up; or that Christian missions there should stop. It simply means that we must do the work with our hearts as well as our heads. Worldview matters. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have victims. Haiti is proof that these phrases aren't merely slogans. They are true for people and communities, for individuals and entire nations. We can only help nations like Haiti by considering the power of worldview, not just our wallets. International intervention and foreign aid are often required to lift natio

A recent study in Scientific American highlighted how and why people jump to conclusions. One experiment involved participants watching fish being pulled from two ponds and asked to make determinations accordingly. Some participants made snap judgments after seeing only one or two fish, while others watched more patiently. It turned out that those who drew the quickest conclusions with the least data were also the most likely to believe baseless things in other parts of life. In other words, their habits of thinking kept them from the truth. As Proverbs 18 says, "To answer before listening— that is folly and shame." Jumping to conclusions is a universal cultural trait; we all do it. But Christians who love the truth and know its importance must think differently. This is especially true online, where algorithms are designed to feed our biases and our outrage. Proverbs is right: we should listen first, always ask questions and think critically, and only answer when we know.

One of the most common reasons that people give for rejecting Christianity, organized religion, or the church is hypocrisy. "Too many people," we hear, "say one thing and live another." This is the concern tackled in the latest What Would You Say? video, hosted by my wife, Sarah Stonestreet, also of the Strong Women podcast. Here's part of the transcript of the video: Have you ever met someone who claims to be a Christian but doesn't act like it? Maybe they are even outspoken about what the Bible says or why a particular point of Christianity is true, but their lives contradict the way Christians are called to live. This sort of religious hypocrisy is damaging to the church and hurts people. So, the next time someone says, "I don't go to church, because the church is full of hypocrites." Here are three things to remember: Number one, a concept like hypocrisy requires a standard of morality or moral conduct with which a person generally agrees, but fails to act accordingly. Every person has some kind of standard by which they make moral judgments. We use these moral standards, even if they are inconsistent or not fully thought out, to guide our everyday actions and thoughts when our actions contradict the moral standard to which we profess we act hypocritically. Christians have a clearly defined moral standard which is found in the very nature of God and revealed in his word. Our standard is God's own perfect goodness. This brings us to point number two. Jesus condemned religious hypocrisy. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye," said Jesus, "and pay no attention to the plank in your own? You hypocrite! First, take the plank out of your own." Jesus also warned that hypocrisy defiles a person, and is utterly detestable to God. Point number three: whether or not Christianity is objectively true does not rise and fall on the subjective experiences of human beings. Paul, the apostle, said that if we have knowledge, but don't speak it in love, we come across as an annoyance to the world, and Jesus actually prayed for us that we would reflect the profound reality of God's sacrificial love for humankind. When we fail to fulfill those teachings, it prompts skepticism about our message of unconditional love. However, through this objection, we have a unique opportunity to say "Yes, the church is full of hypocrites." That's actually one of the reasons why Christ offers forgiveness and salvation because none of us are thoroughly good. Rather we all live in the tension of the goodness of God's redemption and the destructiveness of our own sin nature. So, the next time someone says, "I don't go to church because the church is full of hypocrites," Remember these three things. Number one: hypocrisy requires a moral standard. Number two: Jesus condemned religious hypocrisy. Number three: the behaviors of the believers are not the litmus test for Christianity. That's just a snippet of our latest video in the What Would You Say? series, powered by the Colson Center. If you're not already subscribed, sign up at www.whatwouldyousay.org.

John and Maria discuss how the Governor race highlights more than how one political party can win future elections. John shares how worldview is underneath the movement in Virginia politics and how looking to the future we shouldn't look through a political lens but one that understands the human person. Maria asks John to provide a more in-depth understanding of school and what the role of education is in society. To close, Maria and John revisit a handful of commentaries for the week. First, they revisit a commentary from Shane Morris on how some in science are grasping to explain the apparent reality that the universe had to have a creator. Then they revisit The Most Reluctant Convert, the new movie by Max McLean and the Center for the Performing Arts. John shares that the movie did incredibly well in theatres, and many theatres are extending the premiere for two weeks. -- Recommendations -- The Most Reluctant Convert The Movie>> The Limits of Pleasure Paul Bloom & Sam Herris | Making Sense | November 3, 2021 Surprised by Joy C.S. Lewis | Harper One | 2017 CRT and Woke Christianity Owen Strachan vs Jermaine Marshall with Justin Brierly | Unbelievable Podcast | October 15, 2021 -- Story References -- Parents Find Support from SchoolsKuyper believed that societal breakdown was inevitable whenever a God-ordained authority either abandoned or exerted authority outside of its ordained sphere. That's an ominous analysis today when so many, including gubernatorial candidates, see the state as society rather than as a mere element of society.BreakPoint>> How this suburban school board became the hottest issue in the Virginia governor's raceAmid school board chaos across the country, Loudoun has become particularly prickly, as Youngkin and McAuliffe argue about so-called critical race theory, the potential banning of books like Toni Morrison's "Beloved" and how to navigate COVID-19 protocols in schools.USA Today>> The Most Reluctant Convert's Journey to Faith and to the Big ScreenToday, too, we need a revival of the Christian imagination. One of my favorite scenes in The Most Reluctant Convert is when Lewis reads George MacDonald's Phantastes for the first time. MacDonald's gripping imagery and deep love of goodness did something incredible for Jack, long before his conversion: it taught him to long for holiness. "That night," he would write years later, "my imagination [was] baptized."BreakPoint>> Intelligent Design without God?This is Ockham's Razor on a cosmic scale. As Meyer concludes in his book, the "God hypothesis" is still the most scientifically reasonable explanation for the universe, one that does not "unnecessarily multiply explanatory entities." While it's an improvement that some modern astronomers and physicists are willing to consider intelligent design, given a choice between a transcendent God and an infinite number of immanent alien designers (or turtles?), the answer is obvious.BreakPoint>>

On Tuesday, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated incumbent Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor race. The issue that gave Youngkin the edge was education, something that Republicans in Virginia typically do not perform as well on. Things have apparently changed in the Commonwealth, however, after a year and a half of school shutdowns, heated disagreements over masking policies, debates over whether Critical Theory should be taught in the classroom on issues of race and LGBTQ, a horrific cover-up by the Loudon County school board, and, especially, Governor McAuliffe's comment during a September debate that parents 'shouldn't be telling schools what to teach.' As shocked as Virginians were by the statement, the view of education it reflects has a storied history. The late sociologist Christopher Lasch described it in his 1979 bestseller, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. Lasch believed that when industrialization took labor outside of the home, it led many Americans to question whether other responsibilities should leave home, too. Lasch quotes two national education officials who, in 1918, said, "Once the school had mainly to teach the elements of knowledge; now it is charged with the physical, mental and social training of the child as well." Around the same time, Sigmund Freud was psychoanalyzing parenthood, often casting parents in the role of villain. This was also the era in which the modern concept of social work was born, and when America launched the juvenile justice system. Entire industries were built upon the premise that parents were largely unqualified to raise their kids, or at least needed a lot of help from the state. In the late 1800s, Ellen Richards, the founder of modern social work, suggested that "in a social republic, the child as a future citizen is an asset of the state, not the property of its parents." A few decades earlier, Dutch theologian, statesman, and philosopher Abraham Kuyper outlined a very different theory of the relationship between the family, the state, and other aspects of society. With his view of "sphere sovereignty," Kuyper suggested that government was only one of the God-ordained governing institutions, each created with their own purview and scope of authority. Though they have a vested interest in the education of citizens, governments don't bear the responsibility or the right to usurp parents' authority. Kuyper believed that societal breakdown was inevitable whenever a God-ordained authority either abandoned or exerted authority outside of its ordained sphere. That's an ominous analysis today when so many, including gubernatorial candidates, see the state as society rather than as a mere element of society. Scripture describes the birth of a child as a gift from God. God gave Isaac to Abraham and Sarah, Samuel to Hannah, and so on. "The Lord has given me many sons," said King David. Of course, God's gifts come with responsibilities. Parenthood intrinsically commits Christians to follow Jesus, to be thoughtful and self-sacrificing, to live virtuously and teach kids to do the same, to bring them up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Any authority we have over our children is God-given, and must ultimately and eventually be surrendered to God. Sometimes carrying out parental duties requires help. Modern parents are incredibly fortunate to have access to pediatricians, child psychologists, family counselors, pastors, educators, and even whole institutions that assist them in their roles as moms and dads. At the same time, both the parents and the experts have to keep straight who is the authority and who is the helper. We take our children to the doctor when they're sick, but we don't expect them to bathe, feed and clothe them. Having more "technical knowledge" of a child's body neither alters the line of authority nor implies that they know our child. Thomas Jefferson believed the purpose of public education was to foster citizens who were knowledgeable of history and virtuous enough to peacefully self-govern. That, however, requires an accurate view of what it means to be human, what it means to be human together in families and societies, what it means to be fallen humans, and how fallen humans can become self-governable people. When a culture loses its grip on those foundations, the "experts" (or, as C.S. Lewis called them "conditioners") step in. They loudly suggest that a college degree in education and a place on the government's payroll gives someone the vocational and moral authority over kids. Don't buy it. That authority belongs to God, Who assigns it to parents, along with the responsibility to educate children. If we believe that, we should also trust Him to equip us to rise to the occasion of raising our children.

According to a new report from the China Tribunal, the Chinese government is harvesting organs, essentially running a "kill to order" business of conscience dissidents from inside the Fulan Gong sect and Uyghur prison camps. They then remove organs from the dead. The scale is stunning. Last year, China reported 20,000 organ transplants to the World Health Organization. Critics think the number is closer to 100,000. The numbers are staggering, but this is something that's been widely reported since 2006, with government documents from China outlining parts of the practice since the early 2000s. Forced organ harvesting from minorities is barbaric. It's a consequence of the Chinese Communist Party's dehumanizing view of its citizens and its totalitarian methods, which are further reflected in its draconian birth policies. The continuation of this practice is enabled by an international community still pretending it isn't happening. The test of a society, and the worldview driving it, isn't just what it promotes, but also what evil it confronts. Right now, the silence is telling.

Shane Morris invites Colson Center Director of Equipping and Mobilization, Michael Craven to answer a host of questions about the church. A number of listeners have written in to ask how the church can engage this cultural moment. One listener asks what things we can celebrate inside the church, rather than simply critiquing what is happening in the church.

Atheist comedian, Stephen Fry, once said (quite ironically) that you are who you are when nobody's watching. When social restraints are removed, when the cameras aren't rolling, what sort of person are you? What sort of choices do you make? All of us—especially men—need to ask these questions of ourselves in the wake of the daily flurry of scandals from Hollywood and Washington. This isn't a problem "out there" in someone else's sound studio, office, or home. It's a problem "in here," at the depths of the sinful human heart. Is the person we portray to others the same person we are when we're by ourselves—or more importantly—when we believe there'll be no consequences for our actions? This is sometimes called "living on your face," in other words, making sure that what you present in public is the character you demonstrate in private. Only as Christians, we know that there's nowhere we can flee from the presence of God, who sees all, and who's always with us, and who promises that "our sins will find us out."

One of the most beloved and quotable scenes in The Chronicles of Narnia is from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, when the children learn that Aslan is a lion, "the Lion, the great Lion." "Ooh!" said Susan, "I'd thought he was a man. Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion." "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver..."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." Though we love the idea that God is not "safe," we often live as if our safety or comfort marks the boundaries of our relationship with Him. Catechized by bad theology, captivated by our culture's enablement of self-centeredness, or weary of an angry and fractious age, many Christians cannot conceive that God's will for our lives could involve anything unpleasant or uncomfortable. When it does and our expectations collapse, we wonder if God cares, having conflated God's faithfulness with a painless, placid life of blessing and provision. We are quick to assume that pain or discomfort means that God's will has been thwarted, or that His love and protection have been withdrawn. It's difficult to accept that, rather than a sign of God's absence, the presence of pain could be a sign of His sovereign care. Throughout The Horse and His Boy, Aslan continually allows fear, hardship, and even physical pain for the main characters. When Shasta, one of the two main humans in the story, is fleeing from his abusive, adoptive father on the Narnian horse Bree, a lion chases them through the darkness. Fleeing from the danger, he encounters another rider fleeing from, it seems, another lion. Aravis is also escaping her home on a talking Narnian horse. Their shared fear and confusion bring them together for a journey neither of them could have made without the other. Later, in the story, they're riding as fast as they can to head off a threat to Narnia. Just as Bree claims he can go no faster, a "new" lion closes in on them. Lewis writes, "His eyes gleamed red and his ears lay back on his skull. And Bree now discovered that he had not really been going as fast – not quite as fast – as he could. Shasta felt the change at once. Now they were going all out. The lion then badly wounds Aravis, before retreating unexpectedly. Later, Shasta learns the full story. There was only one lion, not many. Aslan was "swift of foot." Without the fears and the pain, Shasta and Aravis, Bree and Hwin, would have never met; their quest would have failed; the enemy would have been victorious; and Shasta would never have learned who he truly was. The pain wasn't an afterthought on Aslan's part, but a key element in his plan. None of this implies that pain should be sought out. Pain is never the point of God's plans, any more than it is the purpose of physical exercise. Never pushing ourselves to the point that it hurts means never improving our health. On the other hand, seeking pain is more likely to do harm than to aid our well-being. In and of itself, pain is not good, but it is meaningful. Pain indicates that something is wrong and needs to be addressed. Without pain, we'd never know. In the same way, breaking bad habits of the past requires pushing beyond our comfort levels, through the pain, and onward on the path to full restoration. Pain is sometimes required to reorient us. What else can turn one away from a debilitating addiction or insatiable sexual impulse? Without discomfort, would we ever give up on our preferred source of "safety" for the faithful and sometimes painful love of God? Whether through sickness or sacrifice, in ending a dream or enduring hostility, we must remember that God's faithfulness is not determined by how well our lives are going. In fact, it is often known only in the hardest things of life. To deny that God could or would use discomfort for our good is to deny that He is present in our pain. He is. Just as, in His quest to restore the glory of His creation, He did not shrink back from inflicting pain on His dear Son, His love for His people often includes a level of discomfort and pain. In the end, it is part of His work to restore His image-bearers to their intended dignity. As Lewis wrote elsewhere, "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world."

"There's some order in this chaotic universe." Those are the words of Noam Libeskind a postdoctoral researcher at Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam. He was referring to recent breakthrough findings in astrophysics. Scientists have long thought that the entire universe is interconnected by a "cosmic web" of dark matter and gas structures. What Libeskind and his team found was that these colossal filaments are rotating, which makes them "the largest objects known to have angular momentum." In Libeskind's words, "they're not just swarming randomly. There's actually an ordered motion to them."

Max McLean is bringing Lewis to life for a generation of theatergoers. His Fellowship for the Performing Arts has toured the country bringing C.S. Lewis from the page to the stage. During Covid, McLean pivoted their in-person presentations to transform one of their most popular presentations into a feature film. The Most Reluctant Convert chronicles the faith journey of C.S. Lewis. Drawing from the canon of Lewis, McLean presents how Lewis realized the need for God in the world, realized his need for a God who so loved the world, and how Lewis stepped from writing his own story to join the Great Narrator in His story. The Most Reluctant Convert is playing in select theatres around the country today. For details on showtimes, and to see if theatres near you are extending the performance, visit www.cslewismovie.com

For years now, my friend Max McLean has brought incredible stories to life on stage through his organization, Fellowship for Performing Arts. He's doing this in the heart of the arts world, in New York City. I've appreciated his work bringing the life and work of C.S. Lewis to life on stage. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were able to see Lewis's The Great Divorce brought to life on stage in a compelling presentation and one of the first performances Max led after the Covid lockdowns. However, during Covid, Max and the Fellowship for Performing Arts took one of their most popular performances, The Most Reluctant Convert, and turned it into a movie. It hits theaters across the country today. My colleague Shane Morris recently interviewed Max McLean about Lewis's redemption story on the Upstream podcast. Listen to how Max McLean describes the remarkable conversion of one of Christianity's most ardent and talented defenders, C.S. Lewis. We, as Christians, particularly on the evangelical side, we're pretty impatient about things. Lewis's journey as a hard-boiled atheist to the pursuit of God is very dramatic. His journey didn't start until after the War, probably when he met Owen Barfield and they had those arguments. These were had at some point during The Great War, and Lewis called it a "war with Barfield," I think. Those conversations probably didn't start until Lewis was 21 years old. So, there's a ten-year journey of moving towards Christianity for Lewis. Lewis said what he found was horrifying; it was just abysmal. He really recognized his utter sinfulness, and then ultimately he could understand that he believed in God. His conversion was not this sort of "god of the philosophers" moment. It was "the God who demands." Lewis lived in that world for a while. He couldn't understand the importance of Jesus. So, when he finally comes to Christ (and I think the film does a nice job with Lewis's walk and his conversation with Tolkien, which is key to the film and key to Lewis's story) and then from there, we have this extraordinary church scene, which he talks about in his letters, that he took a short walk to church. He says that walk marked the end of one journey, and the beginning of another. You know, I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I understand the word Israel means "struggle with God." When Jacob wrestles with God, I think that's the norm of the real Christian life. We have to wrestle with our desires, our sin nature, because the last thing we really want to do is follow God. We want to follow ourselves; God wouldn't let him off the hook. And I anticipate that this film is going to awaken a lot of that struggle in many, many people. That story, the story of C.S. Lewis's struggle-leading-to-reliance in Jesus, is now in theatres across America. It releases today. Go to cslewismovie.com for theatres and showtimes.

As Inc.com's Bill Saporito reports, a new innovation called "controlled environment agriculture" is poised to shake up how we grow food. By stacking greenhouses vertically in abandoned buildings, entrepreneurs are growing food in less time with higher yields, using up to 95 percent less water, no pesticides and a dramatically shorter supply chain. As a result, vertical farms can be up to 400 times more productive than traditional farms. This approach may help mitigate environmental problems like pesticides and water usage, and could reduce the number of "food deserts," miles of urban sprawl with no affordable fruit and vegetables. It could even bridge the divide between farms and cities. Farms are currently operating in South Karney, New Jersey, in warehouses that stood empty for years. In Scripture, God demonstrates an affinity for both gardens and cities, and innovations like this reflect how God made people to think. What's more, it undermines climate anxiety like the kind made popular by Paul Ehrlich, which treats people as problems to be solved. He predicted millions would starve; instead, people are once again innovating and solving problems.

Why is there something instead of nothing? This is a question that has long haunted scientists, beyond the what to the why. For a long time, the widely accepted answer from astrophysicists, astronomers, and others was that the universe always existed. This so-called "steady-state theory" was a favorite of materialists because it sidestepped any need for a Creator. However, in the 20th century, the collective evidence became overwhelming, forcing scientists to accept that space, matter, energy, and even time had a beginning. Ergo, the cosmos is not eternal. The "Big Bang" theory, which replaced the steady-state theory, wasn't as much an explanation for how the universe came to be as it was a description of the immediate aftermath of its beginning. The initial first cause, i.e. whatever it was that set off the Big Bang and provided the fine-tuning necessary to produce a life-friendly universe, remained a mystery. At least, it was a mystery for those unwilling to accept God as the first cause. That's not to say there were no suggestions. For example, among the attempts to explain the Big Bang and account for our shockingly life-friendly cosmos were complicated ideas with fancy names such as vacuum fluctuation, cyclic contraction and expansion, the anthropic principle, string theory, and the multiverse. However, as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer argues, each of these explanations comes with significant baggage. In his book, The Return of the God Hypothesis, Meyer shows how these theories either require prior mathematical fine-tuning, or involve serious category errors, or else undermine the reliability of science. In other words, these "solutions" tend to complicate the initial problem they attempt to address. Perhaps this is why, in lieu of these choices, some are now offering another explanation. Writing in Scientific American this month, former Harvard astronomy chair Avi Loeb proposed that our universe may have been created by an intelligent designer… just not God. What if, as the Harvard scientist (not a late-night radio host) suggests, our universe was "created in a laboratory of an advanced technological civilization… Since our universe has a flat geometry with a zero net energy, an advanced civilization could have developed a technology that created a baby universe out of nothing through quantum tunneling." Such an idea, he concludes, "unifies the religious notion of a creator with the secular notion of quantum gravity." Loeb doesn't speculate on the identity of our universe's engineer(s), or the location of the "laboratory" where it came to be. But if his proposal sounds familiar, it's because it is. Specifically, he's proposing a form of intelligent design, only one with an infinite number of extra steps. A question children and atheists often ask is, "If God made the universe, who made God?" The answer, given by classical theists, is "nobody." God is, by definition, self-existent and eternal, the very Ground of being. He who caused the universe to exist requires no cause. He is, as Thomas Aquinas put it, the "unmoved Mover." The very existence of something implies the existence of an unmoved Mover, an uncaused first cause. Because, as Freuline Maria sang in The Sound of Music: "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could." Loeb's version of intelligent design fails to offer an answer to this fundamental question. If the universe were cooked up through quantum tunneling in a cosmic laboratory by alien scientists, who made the alien scientists who created the universe? Loeb certainly tries to answer that question by suggesting that there may be countless baby universes, all engineered by "advanced civilizations," which in turn create more life-sustaining universes, but which are not self-existing or eternal. The process, he writes, may proceed along Darwinian lines, ensuring a selection advantage for life-sustaining universes since they can, in a manner of speaking, "reproduce." He's envisioning an infinite regress of universes and designers, creating one another back into eternity. It's like the old story about the tribe that believed the Earth rested on the back of a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle rested on, the tribesmen replied, "It's turtles all the way down." According to this Scientific American article, it's alien designers all the way down. This is Ockham's Razor on a cosmic scale. As Meyer concludes in his book, the "God hypothesis" is still the most scientifically reasonable explanation for the universe, one that does not "unnecessarily multiply explanatory entities." While it's an improvement that some modern astronomers and physicists are willing to consider intelligent design, given a choice between a transcendent God and an infinite number of immanent alien designers (or turtles?), the answer is obvious.

Media theorist Marshall McLuhan famously said: "We shape our tools, and thereafter, our tools shape us." That's certainly true of books, one of humanity's oldest tools. New research confirms –yet again—just how good it is for us to read books. Reading doesn't simply teach new facts, it wires various functions of the brain. A recent study out of the University of Rochester confirms that reading fiction measurably boosts emotional intelligence. Stories about playing tennis, for example, light up the same part of the brain used in actually playing tennis. Extended reading sessions also sharpen the ability to focus and grasp complex ideas. The same studies also suggest a related effect, that the less one reads, the more those skills dissipate. And, to be clear, scrolling on smartphones doesn't count as reading. Of course, Christians should read books, not only because of how God made our brains but because God chose to reveal Himself in Word. Apparently, He really wants us to know who He is.

One line from C.S. Lewis's autobiography Surprised by Joy is both simple and profound: "That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." My friend Max McLean is bringing the story behind this line to life in his new film The Most Reluctant Convert. It premieres in select theaters across the country this Wednesday, November 3. One of my favorite parts of the movie is the tour of Oxford at the start of the film. There's something magical about seeing Lewis in the rooms, pubs, and streets where he roamed for most of his adult life. The city shaped him: it was his spiritual greenhouse, social club, and intellectual playground. In the film, we take tea with Lewis at "The Kilns," his home of more than 30 years, share a pint with him in his favorite pub, and see him take communion in his tiny parish church. Simply put, Max McLean's portrayal of C.S. Lewis is incredible. For years now, McLean has been bringing Lewis's life and work to the stage through The Fellowship for Performing Arts, based in New York. His love for the beloved author is obvious. He recently said, "Lewis is a hero of mine. I think he's not just one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, but one of the greatest writers of all time." I agree. C.S. Lewis is a life worthy of appreciation, and The Most Reluctant Convert is a story especially appropriate for this cultural moment. Early in his life, Lewis experienced much of the joy and pain he would later write about, especially in the life and death of his mother. These memories were part of what drove Lewis to become an exceptional children's author. He took the minds and hearts of kids seriously, famously saying that, "a children's story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children's story." The lesson for us is that Lewis never talked down to kids, and we shouldn't either. He wrote stories that dignified them as the image-bearers they are. Lewis called them to goodness over evil, and challenged their hearts and minds. As a result, his books continue to resonate today with children and their parents. Another central theme in Lewis's writing is friendship and, in The Most Reluctant Convert, we see why. Far from coming to faith in a vacuum, Lewis was guided to Christ through conversations with Owen Barfield, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Hugo Dyson. Each of these friends showed "Jack" (as they called him) the love of Christ, while steadfastly challenging his materialist ideas. In fact, it was one particularly fateful afternoon walk, with his friend J.R.R. Tolkien, when a deeper aspect of Christianity driven home in Lewis's heart and mind. The Gospels have all the qualities of the pagan myths he loved, with one essential difference: the Gospels are true. In the words of Tolkien, they are God's "myth made fact." In matching Lewis's deep love for classic mythology with the wonder of Scripture, Tolkien found a bridge to his friend's heart. It's tempting to think that these kinds of conversations are out of reach in an ideologically divided time like ours, but nothing could be further from the truth. Christians still have opportunities to choose friendship with the people God puts in our path, and to reach them through the common ground of imagination. We never know when we might be talking to the next C.S. Lewis. Today, too, we need a revival of the Christian imagination. One of my favorite scenes in The Most Reluctant Convert is when Lewis reads George MacDonald's Phantastes for the first time. MacDonald's gripping imagery and deep love of goodness did something incredible for Jack, long before his conversion: it taught him to long for holiness. "That night," he would write years later, "my imagination [was] baptized." That imagination was quickly linked to Lewis's concept of joy: the longing for something deeper and better, and his desire for truth. In his words, it is "the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited." In The Most Reluctant Convert, we see a young Lewis, an atheist, slowly drawn to the truth and beauty of the Gospel through his longing for joy. One of the best outcomes of this film would be Christians inspired to tell stories in the exact same tradition. C.S. Lewis might have been "the most reluctant convert," but that only makes what God did in and through him all the more incredible. His is a story worth telling and watching. Don't miss your chance to see The Most Reluctant Convert this week. Its limited release in theaters starting November 3rd. You can get your tickets now at cslewismovie.com.

Facebook announced a "rebrand" this week. In the announcement, CEO Mark Zuckerberg presented a vision for social media in the future. Reacting to this news, Maria asks John is this is something we should withdraw from in fear, or whether there is a silver lining to the dystopian vision Mark Zuckerberg offers. Recently, a boy (who identifies as female) was convicted for having molested two teenage girls in two different schools. According to John, this real-world, and painful, situation is a consequence of ideological shifts about sex. These shifts embody the sexual revolution and is encapsulated in a White House statement on gender equity. To close, John recommends a new film coming out this week to theatres across the nation. The Most Reluctant Convert is a dynamic look at the coming to faith of C.S. Lewis. -- Recommendations -- The Most Reluctant Convert Max McLean | Fellowship for the Performing Arts