Breakpoint

Recently, the University of Washington offered a girls' volleyball scholarship to a 16-year-old boy. Swimmer Riley Gaines, perhaps the nation's top advocate for female athletes, broke the news. In response, UW allegedly rescinded the scholarship offer, claiming that they didn't know the recipient was male.

Some parents of girls who play in the same high school league as the boy have said that their daughters didn't realize they were being forced to compete against a male until matches were underway. Of course, they shouldn't have to think about it, and parents shouldn't have to worry about it either.

It's the school's job, along with those tasked with governing school sports, to ensure fair competition and reasonable safety, and to protect the privacy of minors in spaces like locker rooms. But since many aren't doing that job, like Ohio's governor, parents have to be vigilant, ask the hard and awkward questions, and make the tough decisions.

After all, it's only the new normal if everyone goes along.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently in Vox, journalist Rachel Cohen attempted to explain how "millennials learned to dread motherhood." Noting the troubling drop in global fertility rates, Cohen spoke to dozens of women about whether they hoped to become or hoped to avoid becoming moms.

"Today, the question of whether to have kids generates anxiety far more intense than your garden-variety ambivalence. For too many, it inspires dread. I know some women who have decided to forgo motherhood altogether—not out of an empowered certainty that they want to remain child-free, but because the alternative seems impossibly daunting. Others are still choosing motherhood, but with profound apprehension that it will require them to sacrifice everything that brings them pleasure. "

At least part of the dynamic at work here is cultural. Technology and evolving social norms have created the impression that the choice to become parents is simply one among many lifestyle "choices" we make, such as whether to buy or rent, or whether or not to get a dog. And like those choices, we make the choice to have children or not based on convenience, enjoyment, and personal fulfillment. It's no surprise, then, that motherhood often lands on the losing side of that evaluation.

This narrative has roots in second-wave feminism. Unlike early feminism, which was largely about correcting social injustices in pursuit of equal rights for women, second- and especially third-wave feminism went further, presuming that a woman's value is found entirely in how she compares to and competes with men. In the process, women's fertility was, in many ways, pathologized, treated as a bug rather than a feature of being a woman.

Rather than liberating women as promised, however, one of the consequences of this brand of feminism is fear. Women have been led to believe that having children will destroy the possibility of fulfillment and happiness. This narrative is so dominant that many women feel stigma from finding any joy in motherhood. Cohen described as much in a remarkable section of her Vox piece:

"When I started asking women about their experiences as mothers, I was startled by the number who sheepishly admitted, and only after being pressed, that they had pretty equitable arrangements with their partners, and even loved being moms, but were unlikely to say any of that publicly. Doing so could seem insensitive to those whose experiences were not as positive."

One of the implications is that some women just won't be able to endure motherhood. It's an example of what's been called "the tyranny of low expectations." The fear becomes self-fulfilling, especially when "enjoying" the moment-to-moment experience of motherhood is the only (or at least the most important) indicator that having children was the "right choice."

Of course, this whole narrative falls apart if children are not merely lifestyle choices like houses or pets. The very experience of motherhood seems to suggest as much. According to a 2022 Pew research study, 80% of parents say having children is enjoyable and rewarding. And, strangely enough, those most likely to rate parenthood highly were low-income parents.

If marriage and having children is seen as merely a means to pleasure, we will be disappointed when these things are difficult, painful, or boring, as they often are. On the other hand, if life has meaning beyond comfort and pleasure, then something can be difficult and worth pursuing at the same time.

Interestingly, the Vox piece about motherhood is conspicuously silent about a factor crucial to the experience of childbearing: marriage. Cohen writes as if having children is a "choice" laid squarely at the feet of women alone, as if marriage and babies have nothing to do with each other. But culture-wide decline in marriage explains some of her peers' apprehension. The American Family Survey regularly finds that married moms are among the happiest people in the country, reporting vastly higher rates of satisfaction and much lower rates of loneliness.

Just as the ability to bear children is part of God's design for women, having children is an inherent part of God's design for marriage. Pursuing children outside of that design will be more painful and difficult than it was meant to be. Anyone who feels childbearing is too daunting to choose should look to the Psalmist's promise to "[d]elight [ourselves] in the Lord, and he will give [us] the desires of [our] heart." They may find that, in His grace, God gives them the grace to desire children after all.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

A year after a middle school in Minnesota banned phones, the principal is reporting students are "happy." Phone-related problems before the ban included "interactions of bullying, of setting up fights, (and) the gambit of a lot of the negative things ..." but that's all changed. One parent says that because of banning phones, her son "is thriving and really focused and doing really well." He even "[p]articipates in class discussions."

As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt said on X, "What parent would expose their child to so many documented risks from any other consumer product?" So, why do we allow it with phones? Haidt recommends "giving only flip phones before high school and delaying the opening of social media accounts until 16." Another expert on the impact of social media is Jean Twenge. She has yet to grant social media to her 16-year-old daughter.

Look—the data has never been clearer. Regulate your kids' phones and keep them off social media as long as possible. They'll thank you for it someday.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In what has become a dark annual tradition, Islamic militants in Nigeria carried out targeted attacks on Christians on Christmas Eve. Up to 200 are confirmed dead and about 300 injured in the attacks that were carried out in 20 villages across the north-central state of Plateau. Islamic militants have carried out similar Christmas attacks for at least the last four years.

The population of Nigeria is almost evenly divided between Muslims and Christians, a religious split that largely follows geographic lines. The northern part of the country is predominantly Muslim, and the eastern and southern parts heavily Christian. The middle of the country, sometimes called the "Middle Belt," is ethnically and religiously diverse.

Not surprisingly, the threat to Christians originated from the Islamic north, though it has now spread to southern regions. Three groups are responsible for what Open Doors has called a campaign of "religious cleansing" against Christians. Boko Haram, one of the most notorious Islamist terrorist groups in the world, is responsible for killing thousands of Christians and displacing countless more since violence began to escalate in 2015. In recent years, their ruthlessness has been matched by a rival group, the Islamic State in West Africa.

As dangerous as these explicitly Islamist groups are, the Fulani herdsmen are worse. Because the Fulani territory in north Nigeria is suffering from a long-term drought, the Fulani are moving south to access water. To take land and drive out Christians, the herdsmen have raided and burned villages, slaughtered villagers, destroyed crops, and engaged in a host of other atrocities. It was the Fulani who carried out this year's Christmas attacks.

For years, the Nigerian government has denied the obvious religious dimensions of the Fulani herdsmen, instead claiming it to be a conflict between famers and herders. Former President Muhammadu Buhari is a Fulani. Though he attempted to address some of the economic issues that drive Fulani militancy, he consistently denied that religion played any role in the conflict, pointing out that Muslim villages were also raided. However, the vast majority of attacks were committed against Christians, including Christians in churches on Christmas and Easter.

In fact, the Fulani's history of Islamic militancy dates back to the late 17th century. Denying the religious dimensions of these attacks is pure propaganda, according to the governor of the state of Plateau, Caleb Mutfwang. In a New Year's broadcast, he called for a week of mourning to begin 2024, referring to the recent killings as a "Christmas genocide" and acknowledging the over 400 that were killed just between April and June of 2023.

"These unprovoked and simultaneous attacks in different villages were clearly premeditated and coordinated.

These series of attacks on our people are a clear case of criminality, insurgency and terrorism and must be seen and handled in that manner if we must succeed in halting this wanton destruction of lives and property.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is a misrepresentation of facts to describe these needless and unprovoked attacks on our people as a Farmer-Herder clash, as has always been the traditional narrative. Let us call a spade a spade; this is simple genocide!"

Indeed, what has happened to Nigerian Christians over the past decade and more meets the established international standards for the label genocide. And yet, as Johnnie Moore noted on X, "the @StateDept is reticent to speculate on the motive of the perpetrators of a massacre of 200 Christians in Nigeria on Christmas, in an area rife with terrorists."

It is highly suspect whether Nigerian Christians should expect help from Nigeria's current president, who was sworn into office last May. Not only is Bola Ahmed Tinubu a Muslim, but he also broke with the tradition of selecting a Christian as vice president. Given the nation's top two officeholders are Muslim, many are understandably skeptical of the president's condemnation of the Plateau state attacks, as well as his promise that "the envoys of death, pain, and sorrow responsible for these acts will not escape justice."

Fueling the skepticism could be that in mid-December President Tinubu referred to his predecessor as "an icon of truth, justice, and patriotism." He then followed the habit of his predecessor in not acknowledging any religious motivation for the Christmas Day attacks.

Even if everyone else does, Christians must not forget the spiritual root of this conflict. For over a century, God has been moving and the Church has been expanding across Africa. In 1900, there were only 9.64 million Christians on the continent. Today there are over 692 million, and they are among the most committed Christians in the world. It is not surprising that Satan would inspire their ongoing persecution.

For our Nigerian brothers and sisters, we can fight on two fronts. First, we must continue to lobby our government on their behalf, asking our officials to put pressure on Nigeria to take more decisive action against Boko Haram and the Fulani herdsmen. Second, we must lobby Heaven, for both our persecuted brothers and sisters and their persecutors, praying that God's Kingdom would advance and win even the jihadis to Jesus.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Christian faithfulness, especially at a time of cultural chaos, isn't really about trying to do great things for God. In a tweet, my friend Katy Faust of Them Before Us explained:

"Afraid for the nation? Buy a house. Plant a garden. Get married. Have lots of babies. Help your children marry well, be great grandparents. You needn't run for office, start a podcast or lead a thinktank. The most powerful & countercultural work happens in your home."

Amen. She then cited Jeremiah 29:5-6, in which God told the exiles of Judah to "build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce."

It can be easy to equate "greatness" with fame or followers or something loud and big. But God asks for faithfulness in whatever our hand finds to do. That was true for the exiles in Babylon, and it's still true today.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

This Point was first published 12.22.22.

Each of the Apostle Paul's letters to different first-century churches contains robust explanations of complex theological concepts, such as justification, sanctification, the connection between faith and works, and the role of Jewish law after Christ. In more than a few places, however, Paul drops punchy and simple statements such as, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). That's straightforward. Or how about this one: "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8). That's pretty clear, too.

Obviously, these statements have clear implications for husbands and fathers who abandon their spouses or children, or who fail to do what is necessary to provide for them. Today, these would also seem to indict those who pressure women into aborting a child they fathered; or those who, through IVF, create multiple embryos only to abandon some of them in freezers; or those who pressure aging parents into physician-assisted suicide. The implications of Paul's blunt and powerful statement about the responsibilities we have to those who depend on us are vast.

For example, I recently asked a Colson Fellow who has taught personal finance for years at a Christian college how he integrates worldview into that class. His answer was simple: stewardship. And, then he quoted Paul's clear, pithy statement about who is worse than an infidel.

Few words better encapsulate what it means to be created in the image of God than stewardship. Human beings were created by God to steward the world He made. He charged our first parents with tending His garden. Though Sin made that task more difficult, it hasn't altered His original command to His image bearers to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." In fact, this was how He intended for us to rule benevolently and wisely over all the works of God's hands.

It is in this concept of stewardship that we find the key to understanding Paul's blunt statement. It's also in this concept that the task of caring for this world is even possible, as finite people with finite resources and maybe a few hungry mouths to feed at home.

Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve's home was a garden that God planted for them "in the east." This was more than a sacred flower bed. It was a sanctuary, a meeting place between God and man, and the embryonic form of the garden city that is described as complete in Revelation. The first man and woman weren't supposed to sit idly around in this garden. They were given work to do, work that would eventually involve the entire world. As theologian G.K. Beale explains, "Adam and his progeny were to expand Eden's borders until they circumscribed the earth so God's glory would thus be reflected throughout the whole world through his image-bearers."

In other words, God gave humans a starting point, a home base, a focal point where their responsibilities as stewards began. They could not start with the whole world, or they never would have started.

This is still true today. No matter our roles, responsibilities, or calling, we are most responsible for the people, things, and places closest to us. This principle is often called "subsidiarity" and is the basis of sound thinking on family, finances, economics, government, and much more. The reason a person who fails to care for the members of his household is "worse than an unbeliever" is that these are the people closest to him, to whom he is most responsible.

As my friend pointed out, the heart of what it means to be a good manager of family finances, a good steward of church resources, a responsible leader for a Christian college, or a good city, state, or nation is to enable care for those closest. Proximity directs priority.

If true, subsidiarity means that the progressive strategies for child-rearing, welfare, healthcare, and other issues that abstract responsibility back to "society" are dangerously backward. The duties in these areas lie primarily with those closest to the needs. The concepts of stewardship and proximity also mean that leading people into a mess and then abandoning them is wrong, and reflects unbelief. This would apply to parents who create and abandon excess embryos (or "donate" their gametes), as well as to Christian colleges that sell teenagers enormous amounts of debt, have them marry each other, and then send them off to be youth pastors. It's not good stewardship, and to paraphrase Paul, potentially leaves these Christian young people in infidel territory.

Ultimately, this comes back to what St. Augustine called "rightly ordered loves." It's as impossible to love all people, all families, and all nations as it was for Adam to tend the whole Earth by himself. Love in the abstract is not actually love. We must love and care for particular people in particular places, and according to one of Paul's least difficult-to-understand teachings, those closest to us should be top priority.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

Recently, scholars announced another breakthrough discovery relating to Israel's King David. The Mesha Stele, a nearly 3,000-year-old Moabite artifact, has long divided historians, particularly a section that some claim refers to Moab's victory over "the House of David" and others think references the Moabite King Balak.

Recently, however, researchers André Lemaire and Jean-Philippe Delorme examined composite images of both the stele and a paper "mask" once used to preserve it. Three deeply faded letters, they argue in a recent paper, conclusively make the case for "House of David."

Much like other discoveries, such as the Tel Dan Inscription, the John Rylands Papyrus, and the discovery of the Pool of Siloam, archaeology continues to point to one of the Bible's distinctives. It's not merely a religious book. It's an account of human history, with an amazing amount of detail. It's not just "true for you but not for me." In fact, the more we dig, the more we learn that it matches reality.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

This Point was originally published on January 26, 2023.

This Breakpoint was originally published on February 21, 2023.

___

Two weeks ago, what started as a routine (and, according to the preacher, "lackluster") chapel service at Asbury University became something remarkable. Instead of heading off to classes, students stayed to pray and worship. Services have continued ever since, with people traveling from near and far to join in prayer, repentance, and song. What is being called a "revival" by some and an "awakening" by others has now spread to other Christian colleges.

The past few days echo the revivals that were experienced in the recent past on other Christian college campuses, including one at Wheaton College in 1995, and those at Asbury in 1970 and 1950. In each case, there were seemingly spontaneous expressions from students of prayer, confession, and praise. The revivals of the past are an indelible part of Asbury's historical memory, and many who experienced the 1970 revival have prayed ever since for it to happen again.

Revivals have been, in fact, a consistent, distinct feature of American religious life since before our nation's founding. The First Great Awakening, in the early 1700s, was part of a larger, trans-Atlantic spiritual renewal centered on personal conversion, an emphasis that had a transformative effect on the emerging American consciousness. The idea that a genuinely converted, common ploughboy was spiritually ahead of an unconverted bishop contributed to a growing anti-hierarchical attitude in the colonies. This, in time, contributed to a growing anti-monarchial mood, setting the stage for revolution.

The Second Great Awakening, which swept the nation decades later, coupled a similar focus on conversion with postmillennial eschatology. Among the results was a drive for social reform. Abolitionism, temperance, and efforts against prostitution became calling cards of what came to be known as evangelicalism.

Other revivals followed, and most included an added focus on foreign missions. The Prayer Meeting, or Businessmen's Revival, of the 1850s was followed by revivals in the camps of both armies during the Civil War, the urban efforts and revival preaching of D.L. Moody of the 1870s and 80s, and the theatrics of Billy Sunday's revivals at the turn of the century. Soon after came the Azusa Street Revival in California, which led to a massive growth of Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement worldwide, and then eventually led to the Jesus People of the 1970s.

And those are only the "big" ones. Simply put, revivalism, with a focus on a personal faith with public implications, dramatically shaped American life and culture and is a major reason that America remained more religious than Europe for so long. At the same time, revivals and revivalism have always faced a good deal of criticism, including charges of excess, hyper-emotionalism, manufactured techniques, and anti-intellectualism.

Jonathan Edwards, a major figure of the First Great Awakening, understood the dangers inherent to revivalist fervor, but he also believed in these unusual times when the Holy Spirit moved among a people. Perhaps America's greatest intellectual, Edwards prayed and worked toward revival, and he offered criteria for evaluating it. According to Edwards, a true work of the Holy Spirit elevates Christ, opposes sin and Satan, prizes the Bible, distinguishes truth from error, and manifests love. He also understood that in the midst of such a movement, there would be things to oppose as well.

All of this is helpful as we try to grasp what has happened at Asbury, and now beyond, over these last two weeks. We'd do well to remember Jesus' warning that there will be tares among the wheat, and that the remarkable times in which the power of God and goodness of Christ are made manifest are ways in which God graciously prepares us for life off of the mountaintops. Though, like Peter and John, we may want to remain in such times and places, He will eventually have work for us to do elsewhere. Critics would do well to recall the history of God working through awakenings and revival, both in this nation and elsewhere, as well as the faithful who sincerely believe that God has answered their years of praying for revival to return to Asbury.

What we can all be sure of (and thankful for!) is that God is constantly at work in His world, sometimes in extraordinary but most often in "ordinary" ways. God is constantly speaking through His world, through His Word, and ultimately, in His Son. May we have the ears to hear Him. And may He grant us the hearts to pray that an awareness of sin and a passion for God and His people would grow in the hearts of these students, long after the mountaintop high of the revival has faded in their memory.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

On our last program of the year, John and Maria talk about the most important cultural moments of 2023. If Breakpoint has helped you think clearly in 2023 about this cultural moment, you can support the work at colsoncenter.org/give.

Recommendations

The Colson Fellows Program

What Would You Say? Videos

Segment 1: The Attack on Israel

The Attack on Israel

Barbaric Norms: Hamas, Israel, and Just War

Israel, Hamas, and Just War: Interviews with Joel Rosenberg and Eric Patterson

Just War Doctrine, Israel, and Hamas

Antisemitism at America's Elite Universities, Surrogacy for Gay Couples, and Canada Tries to Hide its Suicide Numbers

Segment 2: Top Stories of 2023

Unconditional Conference, Leisure and American Education, and the Crisis of Trust in Science

Pope Francis Announces "Radical Change in Vatican Policy"

AI Chatbots Challenge What's Real

ChatGPT, Consciousness, and the Human Mind

UFOs and the Power of Worldview

Former Muslim and Atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali Claims to be Christian and the Growth of Homeschooling

Tim Keller: Pastor, Author, Theologian

Passing of Henry Kissinger, Colleague of Chuck Colson

Notable Deaths: Al Quie and Alice Noebel; Also, The Canadian Boarding School

Segment 3: Important Cultural Artifacts of 2023

Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible's Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

In response to Critical Race Theory, Tennessee lawmakers have introduced a list of "divisive concepts," which, under a law passed last year, are prohibited from being taught on college campuses.

The banned concepts include ideas that cause an individual to feel discomfort, guilt, or another form of psychological distress because of their race or sex, or the idea that the state of Tennessee or the United States of America is inherently racist or sexist. Students can report professors for corrective action.

Princeton University's Robert P. George tweeted in response that the best way to counter bad ideas at the university level is to expose them, not ban them: "The right strategy is creating vibrant, intellectually serious new departments & programs." Especially at the college level, we need more discussion and serious debate of ideas, not less.

Young adults should be taught how to recognize, confront, and critique bad thinking, especially influential bad thinking. As C.S. Lewis said, "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered."

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, visit Colsoncenter.org

This Point was originally published on April 21, 2023.