Breakpoint

Late last month, a large majority of Members of the European Parliament (MEP) voted to pass a regulation that will protect the donation and destruction of so-called "substances of human origin" for the sake of "patient health." According to European media service Euractive, the regulation is intended to "set a framework to provide donors and patients with a future-proof and harmonised system for transplants and donations." However, a group of European Union Catholic bishops warns that the language of "substances of human origin" (or SoHOs) includes not only donated blood or tissues from adults, but also embryos and fetuses.

The language is so broad, according to the bishops, not only would the donation of unwanted, artificially inseminated embryos and unfertilized cells be permitted, but also unwanted, naturally conceived preborn children prior to viability. And, because the regulation requires special steps to ensure that "genetic conditions" not be transmitted to SoHO recipients and offspring, the regulation could give researchers and practitioners license to destroy embryos with, say, Down syndrome or other disabilities diagnosed in utero.

Classifying embryonic human beings as "substances of human origin" erases the fundamental difference between embryos and other human cells. Unlike a skin cell or a blood cell, a zygote of an embryo is a whole, separate, valuable human being. Ignoring or disregarding that fundamental distinction is to remove all barriers from any person, born or unborn, being considered a mere "substance of human origin."

Part of what is driving the increased interest in harvesting fetal tissue and embryos for use in medical treatment is to address what's been billed as an "organ shortage crisis." Though organ donation has only been medically viable for a few decades, it is now deemed a crisis that the demand for organs far outpaces the supply. As ethically fraught as that is on its own terms, around the same time as the new European Union regulation was passed, a group of American researchers suggested that neonatal organ donation could significantly mitigate organ "shortages." That suggestion, especially in light of new regulations that categorize embryos as "substances of human origin" that can be used for medical purposes, more than opens the door to dangerous ethical ground.

Even treatments purportedly pursued for medical purposes can undermine the meaning of medicine, as well as accepted standards of medical care. Ever since the ancient Greek doctor Hippocrates, doctors have taken an oath to do no harm. Medical "care" that intentionally harms any person for no medical purpose contradicts the very meaning of "care," and therefore medicine.

The recent, troubling regulations from the European Union are the latest expression of an anti-humanism on the rise in Western medicine. By treating whole, separate, valuable human beings as commodities, the new regulation will harm more than it helps. Like other examples of harm that pass in the name of "medical care," whether Canadian doctors harvesting organs from medical-aid-in-dying (MAID) patients, or doctors in Denmark and Iceland claiming to eradicate Down syndrome by exterminating all children with Down syndrome in utero, or U.S. doctors perpetuating chemical, cosmetic, and surgical mutilation of minors with gender dysphoria, Western medicine increasingly serves a progressive ideological master. We may try to cover up these evils with Orwellian terminology, but the profoundly anti-human ideas at the root of what we call medicine will have consequences ... and victims.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Eckert.

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

"Want to Believe in Yourself?" The New York Times asked recently. The key is to "matter." In the article, "mattering" was given a psychological twist, defined as adding value to a community and being valued in return.

On the one hand, this is an example of missing the point of the problem. Telling someone to choose to matter is like telling someone to make meaning out of an ultimately meaningless universe with their ultimately meaningless lives.

At the same time, the author isn't wrong to imply that mattering to other people is far better than the kind of internalized self-affirmation that typically passes for therapy. Our world leads us to be inwardly focused and untethered from anything outside of our own feelings and will.

We were made to find meaning outside of ourselves, which is why deep connections and relationships matter, and help us know that we matter. This is the way God designed us. We only truly know ourselves in reference to our most important relationships—first with Him, and then others.

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

Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer unpack these ideas on Critical Theory and expose them in their new book Critical Dilemma. With a gift to the Colson Center this month, you can request a copy. The authors will join us on October 26 for our next Breakpoint Forum to discuss the ideas of Critical Theory in light of some of these current headlines. The forum begins at 8 p.m. EST and will be hosted by Colson Center resident theologian Dr. Timothy D. Padgett. The forum is free, but you must register at breakpoint.org/forum.

___________

One of the more ridiculous images to make its way around social media sites in the wake of the horrific attack in Israel was a photo of four Westerners with a sign, "Queers for Palestine." There's also a Twitter page with that name. The banner photo insists, "Allah Loves Equality."

Statements like these are so out of touch with reality, we can only hope that they are satire. Given what we know of Hamas, ISIS, and the Iranian regime, it's safe to assume there won't be any "pride" parades in Gaza or Ramallah anytime soon. Progressives looking for ideological sympathy among the rulers or people of Palestine are fooling themselves.

A week ago, all of this would have been sadly amusing. Now, it's terrifying. Ever since the October 7 attacks, protestors across Europe, America, and Australia have denied, excused, justified, and even supported the murders, rapes, and beheadings of babies perpetrated by Hamas in Israel. It makes a kind of barbaric sense for radical Muslim groups to take such stands. It's harder to fathom why Western progressives offer such affinity for radical Islamism.

After all, this is a religious ideology that is openly theocratic, misogynistic, violently anti-LGBTQ, opposed to free expression, free press, and nearly everything on the progressive agenda. The radical Islam that the far-Left wants to embrace is far worse than the morbid fantasies they hold about Christianity.

On the same American college campuses where you can be silenced for refusing to say that a man is a woman, Jewish co-eds tearfully begged school officials to stop speeches of those wishing their people dead. In Philadelphia, a speaker applauded "Hamas for a job well done." At George Mason University, students chanted "They've got tanks, we've got hang gliders, glory to the resistance fighters!" Before they issued an incredibly paltry half-apology, the BLM organization chapter of Chicago tweeted an image of a Hamas killer parachuting into battle.

As strange of bedfellows as they make, radical Islam and the far-Left share hatred for the Western tradition. They cannot stomach free markets, objective morality and knowledge, or the uncompromising priority of human liberty, especially religious freedom.

Especially, in academic contexts, the Left's hatred is grounded in the ideological capture of our ivory towers by Critical Theory. This way of thinking reduces the complexity of human existence to pre-determined categories of oppressed versus oppressor. Based on these categories, moral virtue and moral guilt are pre-assigned.

The matrix of this dynamic determines who is right and wrong. Anything done for the sake of the oppressed is just, even mass murder and rape. Anything done on behalf of the oppressor is vile, even warning civilians to get out of a war zone. In this case, all that matters is that Jews have been cast into the role of oppressor and their opponents as victims; all actions are either justified or condemned according to this simplistic schematic.

In his book on the Russian Revolution, Richard Pipes described a foreshadowing of this trend:

"For intellectuals of this kind, the criterion of truth was not life: they created their own reality, or rather, sur-reality, subject to verification only with reference to opinions of which they approved. ... It is only by reducing people of flesh and blood to a mere idea that one can ignore the will of the majority in the name of democracy and institute a dictatorship in the name of freedom."

Decades of Western decadence have numbed us to the power of beliefs. Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have victims. That's true on college campuses and in Gaza. By rejecting objective morality as tyrannical, believers in the ideas of Critical Theory embrace tyranny as moral.

Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer unpack these ideas and expose them in their new book Critical Dilemma. With a gift to the Colson Center this month, you can request a copy. The authors will join us on October 26 for our next Breakpoint Forum to discuss the ideas of Critical Theory in light of some of these current headlines. The forum begins at 8 p.m. EST and will be hosted by Colson Center resident theologian Dr. Timothy D. Padgett. The forum is free, but you must register at breakpoint.org/forum.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Timothy Padgett.

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

The Washington Post loves to promote their reporting with the tagline, "democracy dies in darkness." But in a published hit piece last month, designed to smear Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), they intentionally put readers in the dark with half-truths and thinly veiled insinuations, pointing to the fact that a number of ADF plaintiffs are no longer in business as evidence that ADF has "fabricated" religious freedom attacks on Christian vendors who cannot serve same-sex weddings.

Just because some of the cases have been pre-enforcement challenges doesn't change the fact that Alliance Defending Freedom has defended bakers, florists, photographers, and graphic artists from stiff state penalties for refusing to violate their conscience. The attack on Barronelle Stutzman lasted for more than a decade, and Jack Phillips is still being targeted by a trans-activist lawyer enabled by the state of Colorado.

The Post's hit piece obscures what's at stake, who are the aggressors, and what freedom means. Missing all of that is how democracy really dies.

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

The despicable and horrendous attacks by Hamas against civilians last week, including beheading children and kidnapping the elderly, seems a throwback to some distant, barbaric past of human history. We may have thought the world had long ago outgrown such barbarity, but it hasn't. In fact, as shocking as it is, the kinds of atrocities carried out by the Hamas terrorists are the norms of warfare, at least throughout most of human history. Modern notions of just war, proportionality, and distinguishing between civilians and combatants are exceptions to the kinds of warfare conducted by the Assyrians and Babylonians, ancient Greece, the Vikings, the Mongols, and the Aztecs. Massacre sites found by archaeologists in North America reveal how entire villages were slaughtered by Native Americans centuries before European contact.

Similar barbarity continues today, especially in modern undeclared wars such as the Rwandan genocide, the actions of terror groups like Boko Haram, and in African civil wars. Close parallels can be seen in the horrific treatment by government actors of the Uyghurs in China, the Rohingya in Burma, and dissidents in North Korea.

Such brutality should sicken us, though it is far more common in human history, even modern history, than we admit. But, if it's so horrifyingly and historically "normal," where did the world get the idea that such barbarity is so wrong?

The idea that non-combatants should not be killed in war can occasionally be found in ancient discussions of warfare, typically due to pragmatic reasons such as needing peasants to work the conquered land. Christian Just War Theory, in sharp contrast, saw the protection of non-combatants as a matter of principle, not pragmatism. That principle was grounded in a view of human value unique and distinct to Christianity, that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God.

Despite the Enlightenment's hostility to faith and the pervasive scientism of the nineteenth century, Christian ideas about Just War and the value of the individual retained a strong enough hold on Western culture to shape the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. Also, Western domination ensured that countries and military officers would be held accountable for systematic violations of the Conventions as happened, for example, in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

As long as these core ethical ideas of the Judeo-Christian tradition hold sway, they act as a check on the worst impulses of our fallen nature, impulses that quickly come to surface in time of war. Of course, war crimes and violations of human dignity still occur by Western actors and should never be accepted or tolerated. However, when barbarities are considered war crimes and violations, rather than norms, they happen far less than in cultures where that ethical tradition is missing.

Last Saturday, the world saw that, in no uncertain terms, that ethical tradition is missing in large parts of the Middle East. This is especially true of Islamic nations. Outside of a few reformers, Islam rejects as idolatry the idea that humans are made in the image of God. The Hadiths, a source of Islamic authority second only to the Quran, calls for the extermination of the Jews, a fact explicitly noted in the Hamas charter. Without grounding for the value and dignity of individuals, a group can be easily defined as "other," which justifies all actions carried out against them.

It's important to note that the rejection of the value of each person also means that Hamas can use their own people as pawns and agents of propaganda. Thus, Hamas places missiles and military centers in hospitals and schools, knowing that any attacks will lead to civilian casualties that can be paraded before the rest of the world. In other words, dead women and children are the intended plan, not the unexpected consequence.

When attacks like what happened last Saturday occur, Israel has to target missile sites and other military targets to keep its own citizens safe. When doing so produces civilian casualties, it's tragic, but it's still an example of what Thomas Aquinas called "Double Effect." In his example, it is ethical to take the life of another person, even though that's usually sin, if it is the only way to prevent him from killing you or another person. This is the situation Israel faces. The only way to stop the attacks is to bomb important military sites and to break up the network. So, when civilians die, as an unintended but inevitable consequence, these deaths are on the heads of Hamas for intentionally placing their civilians in harm's way.

Given the politics and history of the region, it is expected for many in the Middle East to cheer on Hamas' massacres while decrying any response by Israel. Their reaction is shaped by a culture, a culture that has been shaped by an Islamist worldview.

On the other hand, many of those in Western nations who defended or even celebrated the massacre in Israel have been shaped by a different set of worldview assumptions, what might also be called a Critical Theory mood. This worldview is also antithetical to Christian ideals about human equality and the value and dignity of the individual. It sees people as belonging to groups, and some of those groups are evil by designation.

With the decline of Christian influence on the West, we should expect to see a resurgence of the kind of bloodlust and sadism that characterized most of human history. All this underscores why worldview is important. Christianity is and has been good for the world, and its decline will bring horrific consequences.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Glenn Sunshine.

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

John Stonestreet and Shane Morris discuss the barbarity of the Hamas attack on civilians in Israel and the worldview that brought us such barbarity.

Sections 1 and 2 - Israel and Hamas at War

Breakpoint: The Atrocities of Hamas and the Reality of Evil

Breakpoint: Moral Clarity and the Attack on Israel

Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland

Mindy Belz on Twitter]

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

Princeton professor Robert P. George reports how students respond when he asks them

"what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it."

It's easy to look at past atrocities and think, "I never would've done that!" but that confidence is misplaced. Without some grounds for unusual moral clarity, most go along with whatever a culture declares to be right, even with things now known to be plainly wrong.

Of course, this is merely a mental exercise, until last Saturday. We now face an actual crisis. Following the massacre in Israel, "protesters" across the Western world praised the slaughter, vandalized Jewish sites, and, in a particularly egregious case in Sydney, Australia, chanted "Gas the Jews."

If you've wondered if you have the moral courage to stand up when it counts, this may be our chance.

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

One of the most telling statistics from the General Social Survey, is that Americans are having less sex now than they did in 1980s and 1990s.

Young men especially have become less sexually active. Since 2008, the share of men under 30 reporting no sex at all has nearly tripled.

This stat is one of the clearest signs of what has turned into a counterintuitive but reliable pattern. The more "liberated" and "progressive" our culture becomes, the less interested in or capable of finding human partners we become.

I say, "human partners," because the decline of sex and the rise of high-tech sex alternatives have gone hand-in-hand. Online pornography use, for instance, has become ubiquitous. The Institute for Family Studies reported in 2022 that a majority of men ages 30-49 say they've watched pornography in the past month. And given the connection between porn and male sexual dysfunctions, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

Now, another emerging alternative to real women will likely draw even more men into unreality. British freelance writer Freya India recently highlighted the phenomenon of AI girlfriends, describing an array of new apps like Replika, Intimate, and Dream Girl Builder, which offer men the chance to craft "flawless" digital partners.

These apps promise AI-airbrushed pornography. Users customize body type, face shape, and hair color to "create their dream companion," that will "exceed [their] wildest desires," and can join them on "hyper-realistic voice calls."

These apps offer not only simulated sex, but also the promise of companionship and emotional attention. As India writes:

"Eva AI, for example, not only lets you choose the perfect face and body but customise the perfect personality, offering options like "hot, funny, bold", "shy, modest, considerate" and "smart, strict, rational". Create a girlfriend who is judgement-free! Who lets you hang out with your buddies without drama! Who laughs at all your jokes! "Control it all the way you want to," promises Eva AI. Design a girl who is "always on your side", says Replika."

That last app has been downloaded more than 20 million times, and the industry seems poised to boom, with NBC reporting that "Ads for AI sex workers are flooding Instagram and TikTok."

This isn't an expansion of sexual and romantic freedom or a tool that empowers people to make human connections. Rather, it is a retreat from human connection, a turning away from the very thing for which we are biologically, socially, and emotionally wired.

And yet this has always been the end of the road we started on long ago, when we mixed a commitment to hyper-individualism with technology. As Sherry Turkle observed over a decade ago in her book, Alone Together, the process started with living our lives on the internet. Soon we began exploring alternative identities through social media. We crafted these identities and connections to perfection, pruning our "friends lists" to include only those people who pleased us. Before long, we came to prefer these digital relationships on our terms to the messy and often frustrating demands of in-person relationships.

Now we have reached the stage at which many would rather cut out humans altogether, opting instead for "drama-free" companions who never have bad days, never grow old, always laugh at our jokes, never ask anything of us, and can be simply "paused" if it suits us. And AI technology is here to fill that demand.

What's next? C.S. Lewis was among many science-fiction authors to speculate. In That Hideous Strength, the last book of his Space Trilogy, he describes corrupted inhabitants of the Moon who do not sleep with each other when they marry, but "each lies with a cunningly fashioned image of the other, made to move and to be warm by devilish arts, for real flesh will not please them, they are so dainty … in their dreams of lust." Perhaps AI girlfriends will eventually become robotic girlfriends, deceiving users into truly giving up on human relationships.

But what insanity! We were never made for such nightmares. We were created with bodies for embodied relationships—among them the one-flesh union of marriage, through which God gives children. And at the heart of Christianity is the message that God values our embodied natures so highly that, in Christ, He assumed that nature in order to save us. Our human relationships don't need replacing. They need redemption.

As our culture's retreat from humanity reaches new levels of strangeness, the task of the Church may increasingly be to call our neighbors back to being human. Few would have expected Christians to get a reputation for being the "pro-sex people," but if falling in love with a computer is the alternative, we may be well on our way.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris.

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

Recently, The Guardian published an oddly intriguing article entitled, "The Case Against Pets: Is It Time to Give Up Our Cats and Dogs?" Though arguing from the perspective of the animals, the author actually made a powerful observation about humans. As one expert who was quoted put it,

The level of emotional dependence humans have on their companion animals is different from any time in the past. …

Of course, there's nothing wrong with having pets. It's a way of fulfilling the creation mandate. The problem comes when pets replace people, something increasingly common in a culture in which people struggle with meaninglessness and loneliness.

Blaise Pascal once wrote that "the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself."

God created us first to need Him and, secondly, other people. Pets are a distant third. If we get the order of creation wrong, it just doesn't work out like He intended.

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

The Soviet Union was well known for rejecting so-called "bourgeois" morality in ways that led to rejecting reality. Economically this meant squashing human self-interest in favor of state control. So, basic modern commodities like cars and plumbing could take years for the average Russian to secure. Marxist-inspired agricultural science rejected "Western" science and led to the deaths of millions as crops were planted in the dead of winter, too close together, and without pesticides in the mistaken belief that they could be "educated" to take on more beneficial traits.

In the 1920s, Revolutionary Russia rejected "bourgeois" sexual morality by attacking the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed the nuclear family was, like religion, just another means of keeping the working class oppressed. According to the Marxist dialectic version of history, prehistoric humanity lived in a state of free love, and the nuclear family only emerged to protect the property rights of the rich through inheritance, keep workers content with less, and enslave women to the home.

Engels, who spent a lot of time in Manchester's red-light district, was more specific than Marx in his condemnations of the family.

He wrote, "[W]ith every great revolutionary movement the question of 'free love' comes to the foreground." Together, Marx and Engels attacked "bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child." In their view, family was a social construct that stood in the way of revolutionary progress.

When Lenin and the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, they put these anti-family theories into practice. In 1918, the Soviets issued decrees "on the abolition of marriage" and "on civil partnership, children and ownership." Marriage could be declared without the involvement of the state, and divorce could be obtained just as easily. As one Russian journalist summarized, "Divorce was a matter of choice. Abortions were legalized. All of that implied a total liberation of family and sexual relations."

Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist propagandist, put it this way: "To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did." Almost immediately, however, this experiment began to spiral the nation downward.

Men across the country divorced their wives and sought new sexual encounters. The number of illegitimate children swelled by hundreds of thousands. Women with children were abandoned, while the more enterprising among them blackmailed multiple men for child support. Despite the State's decree that fathers must pay alimony to their children regardless of marital status, thousands of children were kicked to the curb because they could not—or would not—be cared for. From there, an ungovernable criminal element developed in Russia's largest cities. Given Russia's dismal economic situation, the idea that the state would care for these children proved laughable.

A Russian writer of that time observed, "It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions."

The status of women devolved as well. As Madame Smidovich described in Pravda, the Communist newspaper: "If a man lusts after a young girl, whether she is a student, a worker, or even a school-age girl, then the girl must obey his lust; otherwise, she will be considered a bourgeois daughter, unworthy to be called a true communist."

As the 1920s wore on, however, Russia's Soviet leaders were forced by reality to change course and desperately attempted to stem the tide of fatherlessness, crime, legal confusion, and economic disaster.

In many ways, the Russian family never recovered. Even today, Russia's birth rate continues to plummet. As late as the 1990s, and despite decades of government propaganda encouraging population growth, one study found that in some parts of Russia, there were 770 abortions per 100 births—"by far the highest rate anywhere in the world."

In 1920, on the other side of the world, G.K. Chesterton prophetically wrote that "[t]his triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilisations which disregard it."

History is full of examples of societies that tamper with God's design for marriage, sex, and the family. It's no coincidence that en vogue progressive ideas today, ideas with distinct roots in cultural Marxism, also decry marriage and the family as oppressive institutions that should be reimagined and sexual morality as outdated and even harmful.

These things are not mere "social constructs," however. They are laws of reality, like gravity. As Dallas Willard once observed, "We can't choose to step off the roof and then choose to not hit the ground." That's true for individuals and societies alike.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Kasey Leander.

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