Breakpoint

The cultural crisis of loneliness is more acute than ever, partly due to factors like technology, and COVID-related protocols. And one researcher has identified another factor that should not be overlooked: isolation by choice.

Time spent talking to other people, Dr. Jeffrey A. Hall has argued, has declined steadily for nearly 30 years. What's behind this trend?

"Self-care regimes focus on cultivation of a mindful, inwardly focused life," he wrote. "There are increasing efforts to cut out other people in the name of removing toxicity. And all these tendencies are pushed forward by frictionless technologies that remove social obligations to leave home, talk to others and engage in our community."

In response, Hall suggests that we develop a "social regimen that trains our atrophied muscles, even if there is some short-term discomfort, and even if it means encountering people with disagreeable or uninteresting opinions." It doesn't sound complicated, but it won't be easy in a culture that rewards the opposite. There is simply no substitute for real relationships, with real people.

Though we tend to think that Europe is less "Christian" than the United States, in some ways, that's not true. Certainly, per capita, church attendance is lower throughout most of Europe than it is here, and religious Americans enjoy certain political freedoms that Europeans do not. However, on at least two major social issues, America has, for a while now, been more extreme than Europe.

In the case of abortion, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs reversed nearly 50 years in which Roe v. Wade kept states from passing meaningful abortion restrictions. States are now free to set their own rules on abortion and many are actually coming into line with the vast majority of European countries restricting abortion to the earliest weeks of pregnancy. America has long been a more progressive (and dangerous) place when it comes to the preborn.

Another issue in which America remains extreme and dangerously out of step with the rest of the Western world is childhood gender "transitions." This became more apparent last month when Britain's National Health Service closed its largest and most influential center for childhood gender "treatment."

Writing recently at Common Sense, Lisa Selin Davis chronicled the last days of the Tavistock clinic, which was shuttered after its "gender-affirming" treatment methods came under serious scrutiny. Thousands of children have been treated at Tavistock which, in the last 10 years, had seen a 4,000% increase in referrals for girls alone. The vast majority of younger patients were prescribed puberty blockers, drugs that are now known to cause brain swelling and vision loss.

During the clinic's heyday, numerous voices raised the alarm about its gung-ho approach to altering children's bodies. Mental healthcare employees like Sonia Appleby and Sue Evans, both of whom worked at the clinic, warned that vulnerable minors were being rushed through transition without efforts to properly discern other mental health issues they may have had. Keira Bell, a young woman who received treatment at Tavistock, won a lawsuit in 2020 that temporarily halted referrals for puberty-blockers in children under 16. Bell is just one of a rapidly growing community of "de-transitioners" who were fast-tracked through medical transitions only to regret them later.

For Tavistock, the final straw came when respected physician Dr. Hilary Cass concluded that the clinic's approach to gender dysphoria in minors had no convincing evidence to back its claims of effectiveness or safety. As she put it, there is "a lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response."

Following her recommendation last month, the NHS permanently shut down the clinic. "In effect," wrote Davis, Britain has rebuked "the common American medical approach" of "gender affirming care…. There will be no more top-down, one-size-fits-all transitioning for kids with gender dysphoria in the UK."

And then last week, as The Times of London reported, around 1,000 families are expected to join a lawsuit filed against the Tavistock clinic for rushing their children into life-altering puberty blockers.

Other European countries are also pumping the brakes on these sexual experiments on children. Davis pointed to "uber-progressive" countries like Sweden and Finland that have pushed back "firmly and unapologetically" against such interventions. The American approach, on the other hand, is now "at odds with a growing consensus in the West to exercise extreme caution when it comes to transitioning young people."

In fact, despite absence of evidence for benefits and real evidence of harm, medical establishments in the U.S. and both state and federal government powers are doubling down on so-called "affirming" treatments, calling puberty blockers "safe and reversible." Groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics not only endorse chemical interventions but actively work to block state bans that would protect kids from them.

All critics of runaway gender ideology, but especially Christians, have an urgent duty to speak up against our nation's dangerous experiments on children. All who love to look to Europe as a model for progress need to pay close attention to Europe's reversal on childhood gender interventions. Together, we should consider that progress in this area means taking a big step (or several) back from the edge of the abyss.

The closing of Tavistock and the impending lawsuit are powerful reminders that there is nothing inevitable about the triumph of bad ideas. They can be challenged. They can even be toppled. Protecting their would-be victims is all the motivation needed. A quick glance across the pond should dispel us of our doom and gloom and inspire us to take a stand.

Pleas for tolerance and inclusion are often pretext for intolerance and exclusion. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is the Point.

"If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one." Remember that one? These days it ought to say, "If you don't like gay marriage, kiss your job goodbye."

At least that's what happened to U.K. mayoral candidate Maureen Martin last month. Martin published a campaign leaflet describing her views, including that "natural marriage between a man and a woman" is the "building block for a successful society, and the safest environment for raising children."

LGBTQ activists swiftly complained that this was "hate speech" and got Martin fired from her day job at a housing association. Notice, she said nothing about gay people or same-sex marriage. All she did was state fundamental truths about the importance of man-woman marriage to society—truths central to her Christian faith and shared by millions.

Still, like Martin, Christians must speak the truths that get us in trouble and show any way we can that God's idea of family is the best idea.

Far from being an otherworldly religion, Christianity teaches both the importance and goodness of life in this world. In fact, from Jesus' healing ministry to the work of modern missionary doctors, a consistent feature of the work of the Church in the world has been to care for the sick and needy, and not just point them to the life to come.

The early Church understood Jesus' ministry to be a paradigm for their own work. So, just as Jesus set believers free from their bondage to sin, early Christians purchased slaves specifically to free them. Whereas Jesus used miraculous power to heal people from physical effects of the Fall, Christians used more ordinary tools to care for the sick and disabled. These activities are not merely good deeds in themselves but serve to advance the Kingdom. Though the Gospel is a message and must be proclaimed, the early Church saw works of mercy and preaching the Gospel as two sides of the same coin.

The first major epidemic faced by the Church was the Antonine Plague (A.D. 166-189). In fear of their lives, the Romans threw the sick out of their homes to die in the streets. Galen, the most prominent physician of the age, knew he could neither heal its victims nor protect himself. So, he fled Rome to stay at his country estate.

Recognizing that all persons were made in the image of God and that Jesus came to make all things new, body and soul, many Christians ran the other direction. They fought the Fall by tending to the sick, at risk (and often at the cost) of their own lives.

Since even basic nursing care can make a significant difference during an epidemic, Christian action saved lives. Their courage and self-sacrifice contributed to the rapid growth of Christianity. For example, when Irenaeus arrived in Lyon from Asia Minor, there were very few Christians. By the time the plague ended, there were 200,000 believers in Lyon.

The Plague of Cyprian, which took place the following century, was named after the bishop of Carthage who documented the epidemic. Dionysius of Alexandria, also a bishop, described what happened this way:

At the first onset of the disease, they pushed the sufferers away and fled from their dearest, throwing them into the roads before they were dead and treating unburied corpses as dirt...

But, he continued...

Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another. Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ.

From the earliest centuries, Christians embraced the medical theories and practices of the day. Contrary to stereotypes, the early Church did not attribute illness to demons, though they did recognize demonization as a real phenomenon. The real difference between Christians and physicians of the day was the willingness to risk death in order to treat the sick, convinced that if they died it would only mean a transition to a better life. The physicians, on the other hand, fled.

Christians also founded the first hospitals in history. By the late fourth century, there were hospitals in both the eastern and western halves of the empire. By the Central Middle Ages, hospitals and leprosaria (leprosy hospitals) could be found throughout most of the Christian world. When universities began granting medical degrees during the period, church-affiliated institutions continued to provide much of the care.

By the 18th century, the medical field had become increasingly professionalized and separate from the clergy. Though monasteries still provided care for the poor and nursing was almost entirely in the hands of sisters and nuns, professional physicians increasingly handled medical issues for those who could afford to pay. Clergy attended to the dying and contributed to discussions of medical ethics but had few other responsibilities for the sick.

However, medicine was an integral part of the modern mission movement of the 19th century. Because Christianity has always affirmed the importance of the body, hospitals soon followed wherever missionaries went. This is another way the Church has been essential throughout history.

Many Christians and critics today are skeptical that the Church is essential or necessary in the modern world. It is. To learn how and why, please join the new online Breakpoint course The Essential Church: Why the World (and Christians) Still Need the Body of Christ. Hosted by Colson Center theologian-in-residence Dr. Timothy Padgett, the course will feature thought leaders Dr. Peter Leithart, Dr. Glenn Sunshine, and Collin Hansen. Go to colsoncenter.org/August.

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.