Breakpoint

A recent article in Fatherly summed up the risk of divorce by married years. Years 1 to 2 are "high risk." Years 9 to 15 go down to "low." By years 15 to 20, the risk rises again to "average."

"Newlyweds and old married couples," concluded the article, "can never get too comfortable."

The numbers don't lie, but the danger of studies like this is portraying divorce as something that just happens because of "falling out of love" or something like that. The truth about marriage is, thankfully, more complicated.

Couples committed enough to fight for their marriage stand a good chance of making it. Eighty percent of couples who participated in Focus on the Family's Hope Restored Marriage Intensive are still together two years later.

It also matters what we believe about marriage. As of 2019, divorce in America had reached a 50-year low, but that's because fewer Americans are getting married at all. So, the ones who marry tend to believe there's something to it.

And there is, which is why when it comes to marriage and the health of our society, none of us should be comfortable.

Canceling a speaker is run-of-the-mill these days. So, when a university "cancels the cancellation," it's worth noting.

Dr. Kristin Collier is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and director of the school's Program on Health, Spirituality and Religion. She was a natural choice to give the keynote address at the school's white coat ceremony for incoming students. The Gold Humanism Honor Society selects speakers "who are exemplars of compassionate patient care and who serve as role models, mentors, and leaders in medicine."

A group of 300 students protested because of Collier's pro-life views. "We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community," they wrote in an anonymous letter.

Rather than bow to the pressure, as so many school officials have done in recent years, medical school dean Marschall Runge defended the choice of Collier and the school's commitment to freedom of expression. "Our values speak about honoring the critical importance of diversity of personal thought and ideas," he wrote in a statement. "We would not revoke a speaker because they have different personal ideas than others."

The handful of students who walked out during Dr. Collier's address missed something special, an incredible speech that challenged students to rethink what medicine is and is for.

"The risk of this education and the one that I fell into is that you can come out of medical school with a bio-reductionist, mechanistic view of people and ultimately of yourself. You can easily end up seeing your patients as just a bag of blood and bones or human life as just molecules in motion."

You are not technicians taking care of complex machines, but human beings taking care of other human beings. Let's resist a view, of our patients and ourselves, that strips us of our humanity, and takes away from the very goal of why we went into this profession in the first place: to take care of human beings entrusted to our care in their moments of greatest need."

From there, Collier challenged these medical professionals in training to ask big questions about who they are and what they do, and to practice gratitude. It was a brilliant speech overshadowed by a fabricated and unnecessary controversy.

Roughly half of all Americans share Dr. Collier's views on abortion, which she did not address in her speech. As Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote in the blog Common Sense, "I do not share Dr. Collier's faith or her views on abortion. But ultimately, the decision of students to walk out of the lecture because they disagree with the speaker on another topic has no limit."

Collier's colleague, University of Michigan professor Scott Richard Lyons, wrote for Inside Higher Ed,

If the academy brooks no dissent, how can knowledge advance? If differing opinions are treated as thought crimes, how much longer will thinkers want to work at our universities? If institutions of higher education do not protect free thought and speech, intellectual diversity, dissent… why should they exist at all?

In fact, the University of Michigan's Faculty Handbook states that "expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance" and should be protected. Of course, most universities and organizations have similar statements but lack the courage to live by them.

In contrast, Dr. Collier's courage, grace under pressure, and dedication to professional excellence exemplify what's required in a culture that forgets that free speech in a free society blesses everyone. Her kindness to those who walked out of their own white coat ceremony exemplifies how we must treat everyone, from those who reject that freedom to those still located inside the womb. In that moment, she lived out her advice to not see people as machines but as human beings. Especially for those entering a profession especially prone to cynicism and burnout, her address is worth watching in its entirety.

Let's pray there are many among that University of Michigan crowd who follow in Dr. Collier's footsteps.

The second most important commandment, Jesus said, was to "love your neighbor as yourself." Why our neighbor?

Decades ago, G.K. Chesterton offered an explanation:

"The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world…. The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us.

"We make our friends; we make our enemies, but God makes our next door neighbor. Hence he comes to us clad in all the careless terrors of nature; he is as strange as the stars, as reckless and indifferent as the rain…. That is why the old religions and old scriptural language showed so sharp a wisdom when they spoke, not of one's duty towards humanity, but of one's duty towards one's neighbor."

Of course, Jesus was the first to expand the word "neighbor" to beyond those with mere physical proximity to us. But by the same token, our literal neighbors matter too.

They may not share our convictions, lifestyle, or worldview, but agreement is not a necessary prerequisite for love. So, our actual neighbor might be a great place to start.

Recently, the Colson Center announced an upcoming Breakpoint course entitled, The Essential Church: Why Christians (and the World) Still Need the Church.

The responses we have received just to the title reveal a lot about where people are in regard to the Church.

"Dear John, 'What is the Church for?' It used to be the Body of Christ. And the Bride of Christ. Being conformed into His Image. They were to 'love one another.' Despise is closer. 'What is the Church for?' Well . . . I have no clue anymore."

"The nutjobs and con artists have run people away: Get rid of them and maybe people might come back."

"I had to quit hanging out with other Christians so I could hang out with nice people again."

"What is the Church for? To psychologically abuse people, particularly children, with indoctrination into its religion of FEAR."

Some critiques of the Church are nothing more than personal grievances that they've elevated into blanket condemnations. Some critics didn't appreciate learning the truth about their behaviors, beliefs, and lifestyles, which they then chose over Christ. Condemning the Church becomes an act of self-rationalization, not justice.

Others, of course, have more legitimate complaints. Christians have not been there for them at crucial points in their lives and families. And far too often, the Church has imitated the world in its worst depravities, and then, rather than expose sin within its ranks, closed them, protecting the institution or its leaders from being held accountable.

While there are times (like now) that Church scandals seem to add up, a recent joke turned meme on social media notes that, at least historically speaking, this is not really new. "There are two kinds of Paul's epistles to the early Church," the meme goes. "One is, 'I always thank God for you and His unsearchable blessings in Christ.' The other is, 'Why can't you sick weirdos be normal for just a minute?'"

A great hymn of the 19th century tells a similar story. In "The Church's One Foundation," Samuel John Stone proclaims Christ to be the security and preserver of His Bride, despite its obvious brokenness. This verse in particular speaks volumes.

Though with a scornful wonder

Men see her sore oppressed,

By schisms rent asunder,

By heresies distressed,

Yet saints their watch are keeping;

Their cry goes up, "How long?"

And soon the night of weeping

Shall be the morn of song.

These beautiful words describe the tension of life between Pentecost and the Second Coming, and underscore something hotly debated today, even among Christians. Despite the painful reality of sin's enduring power in its members, the Church is essential, not only for Christians but for the entire world.

Despite all these critiques—we could add so many more— Christians must see the Church as essential because Christ does. As a former colleague used to say, "the Church is Plan A, and there is no Plan B." Jesus didn't call us merely to embrace a set of theological proofs and wait for the end of the world. To be Christian is not just to believe in Him for personal forgiveness and meaning and then to live a moral life.

When Christ saves us, He saves us into a movement, His Body, His redeemed people. Somehow, joining together with other frail saints is part of His plan to restore our hearts and minds, make all things new, and glorify the Father which is in heaven. We stick with the Church not because it is perfect, but because it is His plan.

Because of this and the current confusion about the Church, we invite you to ponder with us what it means that the Church is essential, especially now when it does not always seem as if it is. For a gift of any amount this month, you can join this online course hosted by theologian-in-residence Dr. Timothy Padgett, and it will include thought leaders like Collin Hansen and Dr. Peter Leithart. To give and register for this course, please go to colsoncenter.org/August.

After describing the church's obvious faults, Stone then, in the very next verse of "The Church's One Foundation," proclaims this:

The church shall never perish,

Her dear Lord to defend

To guide, sustain and cherish,

Is with her to the end

Though there be those that hate her,

And false sons in her pale

Against a foe or traitor,

She ever shall prevail.

John and Maria discuss the Tavistock centre (a gender clinic) in north London being forced to close due to multiple lawsuits. They also muse over Serena Williams' recent announcement to quit tennis so that she can focus on her family, particularly examining the way it's culturally framed as being a burden. Concluding by reflecting on a recent commentary, they talk about the ways that "chosen families" can never replace the responsibility and foundational importance of biological families.

A new California bill would require that youth receive so-called "gender affirming care" … even if it means removing them from the custody of their parents to do so. If passed, SB 107 would, according to the California Family Council, "empower California courts to take 'temporary emergency jurisdiction' of children if they come to California for trans-drugs, surgery, or mental healthcare."

This would not only apply to parents and children who are California residents, but to children who travel to California from anywhere in the country. As one attorney put it, "SB 107 may be the most brazen assault on fundamental parental rights in the history of this state."

This bill is the culmination of destructive and backwards ideas: that gender affirmation means rejecting the body, that removing healthy organs is the right way to treat gender dysphoria, that "trans kids" are expressing an innate identity instead of a temporary experience, and that parents who question invasive procedures deserve to have their kids taken away from them.

Ideas have consequences. If this bill becomes law, there will be many victims of these bad ideas.

What would it be like to live only—and exclusively—in the present?

Clive Wearing, a former musician for the BBC, is now the most famous amnesia patient in the world. In 1985, Clive suffered a severe fever that gave him both anterograde and retrograde amnesia. That means he can neither form new memories, nor recall most of his previous life. Instead, he lives his life thirty seconds at a time.

Clive's struggle has been well chronicled in two documentaries, the first produced in 1986 and the second in 2005. Clive retains some knowledge—he can play piano expertly, for example, and remembers that he is married—he doesn't remember the wedding, his children, or his wife's name. The dominant experience of Clive's life, repeated hundreds of times a day, is of waking up from a coma for the very first time, without knowledge of who or where he is.

"You are the first people I've spoken to in thirty years," he repeatedly tells his interviewers.

Clive's story has inspired multiple publications of medical and psychological research, not to mention haunting existential questions. Who are we without our memories? What is life worth with no knowledge of the past and no ability to form new experiences from the present? Where is the hope for the future in this?

While much has been written about Clive, the most powerful story lies with his wife, Deborah. The two had been married only a year when catastrophe struck. In the midst of her shock and grief, Deborah campaigned relentlessly to get Clive the care he needed. However, after seven years, she reached an impasse. A future with Clive seemed unbearable after years of the same questions, the same confusion, the same anguish.

Deborah decided to leave and start a new life in America. She moved to New York, intent on resuming a career in the arts. She even tried new relationships. However, none of it worked.

"I wanted to be with someone else and have kids and a regular life. Yet how can you love somebody when you already love somebody? I loved Clive," she wrote later in her book Forever Today.

It was only after she returned to England, torn by what felt like the impossibility of life, that she found a future. It came from an unexpected source.

"I'd reached the end of my tether, and I rang a friend and I asked her to pray for me," Deborah described years later.

"She was the only Christian I knew, and as she was whispering away to God, I just felt this extraordinary power coming into me. And I knew that God was in my room. I just had this incredible sense that I was really, really loved … and that emptiness that I had been trying to fill all those years with relationships, with food, with alcohol, I was filled. "

That moment changed everything for Deborah. She discovered peace. Though God did not erase her suffering or Clive's, suddenly their lives were imbued with purpose.

In a scene from the 2005 documentary, standing in a London church, Deborah tells Clive about one of the last concerts he performed before the illness stole his memory: "It was so moving that everyone was in tears. That's how good of a musical director you were."

At this, Clive is filled with emotion. Though he cannot remember the scene, or even the name of the woman describing it to him, he sensed her compassion. "I'm amazed that you would say that," he said. "I can't think that."

"You were marvelous. You still are marvelous," she replied and kissed him on the cheek.

Where, in the entire modern arsenal of materialist evolution, self-help, and expressive individualism is love like that to be found? Much less explained. Each of these dominant theories that claim to explain so much only turns the search for love and purpose inward. In the end, as Augustine described, these eternal values become incurvatus in se, destructively turned in on themselves—no help in the face of serious struggle.

True love, like what Deborah offers Clive, dignifies the other. It's turned outward. Though he doesn't recall her visits, when asked what he wants to do after Deborah leaves, Clive answers: "A gin and tonic I think, and a cigarette. Waiting for time to elude and disappear. And her arrival."

According to new research, the link between depression and "chemical imbalances" in the brain could be less settled than previously thought.

A leading theory as psychiatrists Mark Horowitz and Joanna Moncrieff write, "Our study shows that this view is not supported by scientific evidence."

Related studies show, for example, that when people believe their depression is the result of mere brain chemistry, their self-confidence and ability to change plummet. Ironically, they also tend to feel more stigma, not less.

Christians, of course, have nothing to fear from the insights of science. Findings like these matter. It confirms what a Christian worldview confirms: People are not merely their brains, nor are they at mercy of chemical forces. Thinking that everything about us is located in the brain is the inevitable conclusion of materialism, and an idea that has real consequences.

Our brains are a big part of what we are, but they aren't all of who we are. A worldview limited only to material components is too small for reality. That's a conclusion that the science is beginning to support.

Particularly "in the L.G.B.T.Q. community, it's not uncommon to find a substitute family, colloquially known as a chosen family," Dani Blum recently wrote in an article in The New York Times. According to Blum, a "chosen family" refers to the "intense, intimate relationships … people form apart from their biological relatives; it is the kinship you create outside of a traditional family structure."

Chosen families are not a new phenomenon, nor are they exclusive to LGBTQ people. But in an age quick to write essential relationships off as "toxic," they are increasingly common and consequential.

Relationships were designed by God to be a gift of His common grace. Certain relationships, like the intimacy between a husband and wife or the bond between parents and children are distinct in purpose and unique in function, irreplaceable in their roles as building blocks of society. Friendship, from our deepest commitments to common neighborliness, is to be treasured. All of these relational arrangements are increasingly rare and disordered in a techno-driven culture, captive to utilitarian concern.

And it is important to remember that Jesus taught of a tie that binds the redeemed beyond blood relation, secured by His blood. He asked in Matthew's Gospel: "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Then, pointing to his disciples, he answered: "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

The Church then is a family in an even deeper sense of the word. It is the family that is chosen by God. It has the capacity to fill needs keenly felt by those whose home life has been broken, characterized by absence, abuse, or hostility. In fact, family is the only relationship employed in Scripture as an analogy for the Church, both in the sense of Christ's relationship with us and our relationships with one another.

The troubling thing about so-called "chosen families," at least in our modern context, is what they are intended to replace. Rather than simply "expanding" the scope of family or letting friends step into a gap, we employ these relationships to shove away and replace our biological families.

The harms of this are most evident to children, as decades of studies have shown with stunning clarity. Biological fathers and mothers each contribute things irreplaceable by any other relationship. Even in the case of adoption, the most redemptive of all arrangements, deep emotional wounds often remain that children must process. Adoption is a beautiful choice, made because something has gone wrong. Thus, adoption is among the family relationships employed by Scripture to describe how God loves and redeems us.

In its glee over creating "family" out of any assorted collection of people, society has forgotten that the biological family is baked into the world by God's intent. Family is no accident of history, no social construct that can be replaced. It is so woven into the fabric of biology that no society that has rejected it has survived.

In fact, "chosen families" are already failing to meet people's basic relational needs. As Joshua Coleman wrote in The Atlantic, "Studies on parental estrangement have grown rapidly in the past decade, perhaps reflecting the increasing number of families who are affected." In one survey of mothers aged 65 to 75, one in 10 reported being estranged from an adult child. Some 62% reported contact less than once a month.

Part of the beauty of biological families is that they are not chosen. In essence, they are built around obligation, a duty to the other, not merely as a means of self-fulfillment. By contrast, if we can opt into a group of friends, we can just as easily opt out.

There are certainly cases in which family members are abusive, controlling, or in the true sense of an exhausted word, "toxic." Still, the spirit of the age is one that teaches us to prefer the company of those who ask less of us. Will these "chosen" replacements endure the demands of life, illness, and aging?

In such an age, the Church's calling to be a family for those who have none matters all the more. Like the family, the Church is no social construct, but a reality baked into the world by the One who created it. He is the same One who included man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father in the design specs of humanity. Any society that tries to write these relational realities out of the story of the world will not fare well.

In the face of record crime, Starbucks has announced the closure of 16 stores in five cities: Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.

The reason, according to CEO Howard Schultz, is these cities have "abdicated their responsibility in fighting crime and addressing mental health," leading retail partners to repeated concerns over "their own personal safety."

"Starbucks is a window into America," he continued. "And we are facing things which the stores were not built for." Given Starbucks' outspoken support for progressive candidates who lead these cities, it's easy to think the coffee giant should sleep in the bed it helped to make. As the National Review reports, Starbucks "pledged over $100 million in social-justice grants" over the last few years, and individual stores are hubs for left-wing causes from trans rights to climate change.

Basic law enforcement is about the reality of the human condition. When Proverbs says that "whoever sows injustice will reap calamity," it goes for individuals and entire cities.

Social justice is trendy, but at the end of the day, pushing hip causes is only possible where there's actual justice.