Breakpoint

John Stonestreet and Maria Baer discuss the sex and gender issues dominating the news this week: President Biden's new Gender Policy Council designed to promotes women's rights, but actually advances the transgender agenda; Governor Andrew Cuomo's alleged harassment and even assault of female colleagues; to the treatment of women employees--even in Christian ministries. What does the Church have to say about what it means to be a man and a woman in today's culture?

Also on today's episode: Millennials flock to the empty religion of Instagram; John and Maria's recommendations for the week: interviews with Jordan Peterson and psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist.

-- RESOURCES --

Join us at the 2021 Wilberforce Weekend, May 21-23, in Fort Worth!

"The President's New Gender Policy Council," by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, The Point

"Two Marches, One Question: Can Anyone Be a Woman?" A What Would You Say? video

7 Women and the Secret of Their Greatness, by Eric Metaxas, available at the Colson Center online bookstore

The Strong Women Podcast with Sarah Stonestreet and Erin Kunkle

"The Empty Religions of Instagram," by Leigh Stein, New York Times

"Prayer Isn't What We Think It Is," an Upstream Podcast episode with Shane Morris and Kyle Stroebel

Jordan Peterson on Restoring the Faith, YouTube

"The Divided Mind," Iaian McGilchrist on the Sam Harris Making Sense Podcast

According to a recent article in The Guardian, "Nearly every main voice of dissent in Hong Kong is now in jail or exile." The latest chapter of Beijing's grab for power saw "Hong Kong police charge 47 pro-democracy campaigners and politicians with conspiracy to commit subversion. All face life in prison if convicted."

The protests, which began with hopes of a democratic rebuke to the autocratic regime of Xi Jinping, have seemingly come to an end, not with a bang but with a proverbial whimper. In the last year and a half, as the world's eyes turned to COVID-19 and other troubles, the Chinese government all but crushed any dissidents and all but ended democracy in Hong Kong.

For a moment, it appeared as if 2019 might be a reboot of 1989, with the tide of freedom overwhelming attempts at dictatorship. News coverage told of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in Hong Kong rising up against a law, pushed through by the Beijing-controlled local government, that allowed Hong Kong citizens to be prosecuted under the mainland's jurisdiction.

Protestors were backed and, in many cases led, by Hong Kong's Christian population. At one point, the praise chorus "Sing Hallelujah to the Lord" became an unofficial anthem of the protests.

For months, the Communist leadership tried everything from coercion to concessions, to squash the protests, but the protests only intensified. By late summer 2019, the government withdrew the offending law, but the movement had, by then, become about much more than one law. It was now about preserving a free Hong Kong. Pro-democracy candidates all but swept Hong Kong's local elections in November of 2019, and protestors flew British and American flags in an extra show of defiance.

But when the headlines from changed from protesters to a virus and the world economy ground to a halt, other nations and their governments turned inward. The country best positioned to apply pressure, the United States, was also dealing with its greatest domestic turmoil in generations and the most contentious Presidential election in recent memory.

Meanwhile, on China's mainland, the overlords didn't let this crisis go to waste. COVID provided all the excuse they needed to clamp down on crowds, protests, and news stories. Under new stringent national security laws, virtually any dissent to the regime's dictates is now liable to draconian punishment. China's promise to maintain a "one country two system" arrangement with Hong Kong was a surprisingly easy thing to discard for something enshrined in an international agreement.

Though we may be tempted to give up hope for the people of Hong Kong, many there haven't. Hundreds continue to defy Beijing by publicly protesting the recent convictions. Though the United States is wavering on what to do, Australian, British, Japanese, and European governments have decided that it can no longer be business as usual with the "People's Republic."

Beijing knows that as long as the West remains divided and distracted, they're free to extinguish Uighur culture and deny Hong Kong its liberty, but not because China is as strong as its leaders suggest. China's economy is incredibly vulnerable and will only become more so as its population ages. Not to mention, the world is now fully aware of what it's doing the Uyghur population.

Given that so much Christian activity in China flows through Hong Kong, we owe it to our brothers and sisters there to pray. In a real sense, an assault on Hong Kong is part of the larger war on Chinese Christianity. We should also insist that the fate of Hong Kong becomes a foreign policy priority. There can be no "business as usual" with this regime… not from the U.S. government and not from U.S. corporations.

As we make our appeals, let's remember how Christians have fared throughout history when challenged by godless empires. The empires are long gone. Christians aren't.

By the way, we will honor someone who continues to speak up for China's liberties, Pastor Bob Fu of China Aid, at the Wilberforce Weekend this May in Fort Worth, Texas. Come to wilberforceweekend.org to learn more.

At the start of the pandemic, many expected the lockdowns and quarantines to lead to a "baby boom." Well, the data is in. Instead of a "boom" it's been a "bust." As CBS recently reported, records from more than two dozen states show a "7% drop in births in December — nine months after the first lockdowns began."

While 7% may sound like a small dip, it's not. As the New York Times puts it: "The pandemic's serious disruption of people's lives is likely to cause 'missing births' — potentially a lot of them. Add these missing births to the country's decade-long downward trend in annual births and we can expect consequential changes to our economy and society in the years to come."

As the Times pointed out, this "baby bust" is, in reality, a pre-existing condition of COVID, not created by the virus but made worse. While some of us have talked about the ongoing birth dearth for years now, a major news outlet reporting on it is itself newsworthy. Until recently, most media outlets have insisted the problem is overpopulation, that too many humans were literally destroying the planet.

However, as USC demographer Dowell Myers told CBS, America's shrinking fertility rate and its economic impact is nothing less than a "crisis." Fewer babies means a smaller work force in the future, which means lower economic productivity and a smaller tax base. This, in turn, means additional stress to Social Security, and fewer people to take care of a rapidly aging population.

If COVID isn't the cause, how did we get here? Ideas … bad ones with consequences and victims.

At the top of the list is the "Population Bomb" myth. In 1970, Paul Ehrlich, the author of the book with that title, predicted that "Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come . . . an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity." That didn't happen, but here's what did. Within 15 years of Ehrlich's prediction, nearly every developed nation, along with many developing ones, had embraced some version of his stark theory and declared war on human fertility. As a result, birth rates dropped below replacement rates.

In addition to that ecological myth, there's an anthropological one, too. For decades, women were told that their bodies were in the way of their progress. If women wanted equality, they would need to be liberated from their own procreative potential. The tragic irony is that once women were, in fact, disconnected from their bodies, transgender men stepped in and appropriated all of the equality and all of the rights promised to women. And now, climate change has been added as the latest reason to forego child-rearing.

The postponing and foregoing of childbirth has corresponded to the postponing and foregoing of marriage. Since 1980, the median age of first marriage has gone from 24.7 for men and 22 for women to 30 and 28 respectively. The additional six years for women correspond almost exactly with their peak fertility.

It's impossible to over-emphasize the role of culture in all this. When was the last time marriage and childbearing, at least in their traditional forms, were celebrated on TV or in film? When was the last time they were celebrated in church?

Israel is a notable exception to the global COVID-19 "baby bust" trend, with a birthrate twice that of the United States. Even non-religious Israelis are having children above replacement level. The cultural attitude toward marriage and family there is just as distinct as the results. As anyone who's been to Israel knows, Saturday dinner is a sacrosanct family event, for religious and non-religious Israelis alike, and children figure prominently in Israelis' definition of "life, liberty, and happiness."

Christians, of course, should hold at least as high of a view of marriage and fertility. After all, God never revoked the command to be fruitful and multiply, and Jesus' command to let the little children come to Him implies there are children around in the first place. Scripture is clear that "children are a heritage from the Lord." Next to the Gospel itself, children are the greatest gift we can give future generations.

John and Shane field a follow-up question they answered last week from a single woman considering adoption. The question last week asked if the listener should move forward with an adoption knowing that the child would not receive a fatherly influence in the adoption. This week a listener wrote in to ask what the difference would be in a same-sex relationship where two parents of the same gender are unable to provide the mothering or fathering a child needs.

Another listener reflected on work and worship, challenged to understand how to form menial tasks into worshipful acts. She pushes John and Shane for greater clarity in understanding what makes mundane tasks a spiritual expression.

To open the Q&A time, Shane presents a question from a listener who is questioning if she is residing in a Christian echo chamber. She notes that she follows a number of Colson Center resources and finds herself deeply invested in understanding the world from a Christian perspective, but is slightly concerned that she might not be seeing the full picture in the world.

The overall cost – room and board – to attend Smith College, an elite women's college in Northampton, Massachusetts, is in the neighborhood of 78-thousand dollars per year. An allegation of racism, made by an African-American student against a school janitor in 2018, has prompted a complex cultural discussion there that is full of worldview implications. It also exposes the significant limitations of critical theory and intersectionality, the dominant lenses by which our culture discerns issues of race, privilege, poverty, and discrimination.

The New York Times called the situation a collision of "race, class and power." A black female student was eating lunch in a dorm that was supposed to be closed for the summer. When a janitor called security, the student claimed that she was questioned for "eating while black." The janitor, whose entire annual salary would barely cover half a year's room and board at Smith, was placed on leave. Another janitor quit after the student posted his picture online, calling him a racist coward.

Smith College responded by issuing a public apology… to the student. Months later, an independent law firm released its report on the entire incident. They concluded that there was no evidence that anyone acted with racial bias.

One of the embedded myths of American culture is the good-hearted, perhaps unlucky, but ultimately victorious "little guy." Almost every sports movie or war movie features an unlikely hero with a big heart but little chance of success, yet who nevertheless comes out on top: the Cinderella team in March Madness, "Rudy," the nerd who gets the girl, the hockey team of misfits, the basketball team with the actual dog on it. Most of us cheer for the underdog.

The problem lies in assigning virtue to underdogs simply because they're an underdog. The modern world, said G.K. Chesterton, has far too many virtues, that are "wandering wildly" and doing "terrible damage." In other words, our virtuous instincts can go awry when they're not anchored to the Truth.

This at least partially explains why this situation at Smith College has thrown off so many people, including The New York Times. Who's the "Good Guy" in a story in which everyone is the underdog? Who should win when an ethnic minority student and a blue-collar worker fall at odds? Who should win if we're not allowed, or don't know how, to issue moral judgments on behavior because we're issuing them simply on social class, ethnicity, or race?

Jesus chose the uneducated and unpopular as His disciples: fishermen, tax collectors, Zealots… Viewing this through the myth of the "perfect-hearted" Little Guy, it's tempting to conclude that though the disciples didn't seem important or wise, Jesus must have known the real story. Perhaps the Twelve were the first century equivalent of the lead character in a high school romantic comedy. Maybe the nerd who's ignored and bullied until he takes off his glasses and everyone realizes how good-looking and big hearted he really is.

But that's not true. The disciples, at least according to the Gospels, were kind of pathetic. When they weren't angry, jealous, or power-hungry, they were confused and scared. Jesus had to say "I came from the Father" about 400 times before they even kind of grasped what He meant.

When Paul says that God chose the "foolish things of this world to shame the wise," he wasn't saying that fools are secretly wise and just haven't enjoyed their deserved moment in the sun. He uses the foolish and the weak to display His glory. By choosing these 12 disciples, outcasts and underdogs, He gets to say, "See what I can do?" After all, how great is a God that can save the world and build a kingdom using any of us?

The fatal flaw in our current cultural discussions on oppression and justice is a misunderstanding of our common humanity: our common dignity as created in God's image, our common frailty as fallen from His grace, our common foolishness after the fall, and our common reliance on His grace for wisdom and help.

Without a doubt, the young woman at Smith College shouldn't be profiled because of her skin color. Neither should a janitor be falsely accused of racism.

Virtue is action, not category. And no one is virtuous or guilty simply because they are an underdog.

On March 8, International Women's Day, President Biden signed an executive order establishing a Gender Policy Council. According to USA Today, the Council will seek to "advance gender equality in domestic and foreign policy . . . [and] combat systemic bias and discrimination, including sexual harassment."

Until recently, we could assume that by "gender equality," the president planned to deal with discrimination against women. But times have changed. The new council "will also focus on transgender rights," which means it's likely the council will find new ways to apply the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock, a case that redefines "sex" to include "gender identity" in Title VII.

So this new Council will likely ignore the lived experiences and needs of biological females in federal law, instead creating ways for biological males to claim the rights of being a woman.

I cannot imagine this is what the organizers of International Women's Day had in mind.

The fundamental assumptions of a Christian worldview are straightforward. The universe is created, not eternal or random. Humans are made in God's image, not mere animals and not gods themselves. Right and wrong are grounded in eternal truths, not subject to the whims of a person or a culture. Christ's death and resurrection have cosmic implications, in direct contrast to both utopian and dystopian narratives.

Applying the fundamental truth of a Christian worldview, particularly in this cultural moment, is not so straightforward. For example, this past week we heard from a woman wrestling with whether or not to go through with an international adoption.

Adoption is so hopeful; why would anyone question it? Well, the women who wrote in is single and committed to the Biblical description of marriage and family. She knows that children fare best when raised by biological mom and dad. She understands that practices like sperm donation and surrogacy intentionally create a life in which that parent-child relationship is broken. She knows that even without a biological link, there's a difference between mothering and fathering and that kids tend to fare better with both. As a single woman, she wondered whether her desire to adopt may similarly deprive a child of a father.

"My 'need' [her quotes] cannot be the deciding factor in this decision. I know raising a child in a single parent home will leave a hole in this child's heart. I know this child needs a father. I know that even my best intentions and hardest efforts will not compensate for this loss."

At the same time, as she undoubtedly understands, the alternative for this child is grim. In much of the world, a high percentage of those who age-out of orphanages (including orphanages in Eastern Europe where she hopes to adopt), end up in jail. "I can't help but think that providing a loving home with one Christian parent would be better than a life in these group homes with no parents," she wrote.

And, she's exactly right! In her honest and serious ethical reflections are all the right distinctions. Her desire to adopt a child in need is beautiful and not comparable with sperm donation or surrogacy, neither in intention nor in practice. Here's why.

As Katy Faust, author of Them Before Us: Why We Need a Children's-Rights Movement points out, the child-manufacturing practices of our modern reproductive technologies are largely motivated by the emotional desires of adults. Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing, in and of itself, but the child's needs have to be taken into consideration as well. While certain treatments of infertility attempt to fix or heal what is broken, others clearly cross the line and treat kids like commercial products.

As a result, surrogacy and sperm donation create a place of brokenness that didn't exist before. Specifically, children are deprived of the right to know a biological parent. These technologies place "us" (the adults and their desires) before "them" (the children and their needs). To use stark terms, in a very real sense, these procedures create orphans.

That is a very different scenario than meeting the needs of children already facing a life with no mother or father. Though this woman has a God-given desire to be a mom, her fundamental question is not, "How can I become a parent?" Rather, it's "How can I give a child a parent?" The difference is everything.

Just as important is her recognition that fathers matter too, and, as a single mother, she won't be able to fill that need. While our larger society has embraced the idea that "all kids need is love," and while so many mothers have to play the heroic role of attempting to fill the need of both mom and dad, she realizes that a mother's love and a father's love aren't the same. Love is more than strong feelings and self-esteem. It's an embodied reality.

This woman's desire to have children is not the problem, and it doesn't have to conflict with a child's needs. It actually can go to meet those needs. As Katy Faust says, when rightly understood, the rights of adults and children do not need to be in opposition.

If this women does open her heart, life, and home to a child who's lost mom and dad, her story and example of clear thinking can inspire others to put "them before us," i.e. the needs and rights of children over and above the desires of adults. That's the title of Katy Faust's new book, which covers the full spectrum of issues in which our culture struggles to rightly honor and respect children. You can pick up a copy of Them Before Us with a gift of any amount to the Colson Center this month. Just visit breakpoint.org/broadcast.

And, for a full answer to this woman's question, check out the most recent "Q&A segment" on the BreakPoint podcast. Visit breakpoint.org, or subscribe to the "BreakPoint podcast" or wherever you get your podcasts.

Our culture proclaims a narrative, that what kids need are parents not moms and dads. Movies, television shows, music, public policies, they all call us to a new way of organizing the family. This new organization prioritizes adult desires, wishes, and needs over kids. We hear, over and over, that the kids will be fine. But the kids aren't fine.

Katy Faust has been on a campaign for years to tell the stories of children who are victims of the sexual revolution. These are often unheard voices in our culture.

Children, conceived by invetro fertilization have stories. Katy is telling them. Kids adopted into loving families have a story our culture often doesn't hear. Katy is sharing it. Those raised in same-sex households have stories. Katy is sharing those stories.

Katy's new book is titled Them Before Us. It calls the culture to place the needs and desires of children over those of adults.

Imagine a young man with every advantage. He's well-educated, goes to church, lives in a nice neighborhood, able to secure strong employment... But he grew up without ever having known his father. Even as he moves into adulthood, his desire to know his father, his sense of loss for what he missed, is somewhere between insistent and consuming.

There used to be a time when fatherlessness was considered a tragedy. Now, raising a child without a father or, in some cases, without a mother is a perfectly acceptable intentional choice. The only thing that matters are the adults making the decision who have desires to meet. The adults are put first; the children, all too often, come in a distant second.

This sweeping social change didn't happen overnight, or by accident. It's the logical outcome of the three fundamental lies of the sexual revolution. These lies are now so widely embedded in modern society that we don't give them a second thought. But it wasn't always this way.

The first lie of the sexual revolution (and I owe my friend Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse for the wording here) is that sex, marriage, and babies are separable. That these created realities were part of a biological, social and religious package deal, went unquestioned until quite recently. Technological innovations, such as the pill, IVF, and surrogacy, legal innovations such as no-fault divorce, and cultural innovations such as ubiquitous pornography and "hook-up" apps, have all made it increasingly easy to imagine that sex is not inherently connected to childbearing, and that childbearing is not necessarily best placed in the context of marriage.

The second lie of the sexual revolution (thanks again to Dr. Morse for this wording) is that men and women are interchangeable. What we mean by this has evolved to a much more fundamental level. Interchangeability in rights was a good thing. Interchangeability in roles was, at times, good and, at other times, blurred biological distinctions. Today, of course, we talk as if men and women are interchangeable in reality, as if men can bear children and "not all women menstruate," and as if love can make a second mom into a dad. None of this is true.

The third lie of the sexual revolution is that human dignity derives from autonomy, that our ability to sexually self-determine, not only in our behavior but our identity, is the essence of human dignity. In that equation, those unable to sexually self-determine, or who stand in the way of someone's "true self" (typically defined by happiness) are excluded from the category of dignity.

These three lies of the sexual revolution were largely justified by a myth, one repeated over and over in different ways, to assuage our collective consciences as we fundamentally violate the created and social order. That myth was "the kids will be fine."

But, of course, they aren't fine. Not even close. In her new book, Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement, Katy Faust documents all the ways the kids aren't fine, and all the ways their well-being is sacrificed on the altar of adult happiness. This is essential reading, not only so we can take our place in Christian history among those who stood for and defending children from hyper-sexualization, abandonment, abuse, and social experimentation, but also because too many Christians embrace cultural norms about reproductive technologies, sexuality, and marriage. In doing so, the Church is complicit in putting children at risk.

In Them Before Us, Faust begins in a crucially different place than the sexual revolution: the rights of the child, not the happiness of adult. That's what "them before us" means. Simply put, adults must do those hard things that honor the fundamental right of children to be known and loved by both mother and father.

The results of the sexual revolution are in: Children are the victims of our bad ideas. Christians are called to be agents of restoration in whatever time and place they find themselves. For us, now, that means advocating for children's rights. As Faust writes, "Our culture and our laws must incentivize and encourage adults to conform their behavior to the needs of their children if we are to have any hope of a healthy and thriving society."

Get your copy of Them Before Us, this month, with any gift to the Colson Center. Come to breakpoint.org/broadcast to get your copy of Them Before Us today.

Bethany Christian Services, one of the nation's largest faith-based adoption and foster care agencies, has decided to begin placing children with same-sex couples: John Stonestreet and Maria Baer wonder why and discuss the implications not only for the children but for Christians organizations that seek to remain true to the biblical understanding of family and human sexuality. As John points out, this issue is certainly not about ensuring that same-sex couples have access to adoption, because there are plenty of organizations only too happy to help.

Also on today's episode: What are deepfakes, and what potential dangers do they hold? Is Dr. Seuss being cancelled? Why we should care about "deadnaming."