Breakpoint

Last week, an Oklahoma state representative who describes himself as a "pragmatic progressive" announced on Twitter, "This week I filed HB3129, which codifies that a father's financial responsibility to his baby and their mom begins at conception. If Oklahoma is going to restrict a woman's right to choose, we sure better make sure the man involved can't just walk away from his responsibility."

What he intended as a gotcha instead went viral with pro-lifers. They loved the proposal, and filled his feed with memes saying "your terms are acceptable." The only resistance to the law came from pro-abortion allies. Quickly and furiously, the lawmaker backpedaled with a follow-up tweet:

"I understand how the language in my message and bill both hurt the cause instead of helping it, and I apologize for not being more thoughtful…."

It's just amazing that so many still claim and so many still buy the whole "pro-lifers only care about babies before birth" nonsense, but they do. Which means, we must continue to refute this silly narrative, in both word and deed.

There's a new ad playing on radio stations in Ohio as part of a PR push called the Stop the Stigma campaign. The ad is a game show skit, where contestants must guess the biggest risk factor for substance addiction. One guesses "making bad choices" and gets the buzzer; another guesses "hanging out with the wrong people" and is also wrong. The right answer, we're told, is family history. Ohio officials said the ads are meant to encourage people to "practice empathy, not judgment" for people suffering from addiction.

That's wise advice. And research does show there is a strong genetic component to addiction. But research also shows that making unwise choices and spending time with others who are making unwise choices also unequivocally contribute to addiction.

In a similar vein, USA Today recently ran a story about the latest research on pedophilia, quoting scientists who say the sexual disorder is "determined in the womb" and therefore "misunderstood" by our culture. The implication is that when something evil is "inherent," it carries a different — or no —moral weight.

The first mistake here is the suggestion that we can have empathy for or compassion on people who do something wrong only when they "couldn't help it." That's both naive and wrong. None of us is immune from sinful desires; that's the fall. But none of us is helpless against our sinful desires, either; despite genetic components or elevated risk factors — that's the redemption of Jesus.

That's why the Bible tells us to "flee" from sin; even when sin "feels" natural. Paul tells the Galatians the desires of the flesh are in conflict with the Spirit. He doesn't say "therefore you are helpless." or "do good things to cancel out the bad." He says we must "crucify the flesh."

Still, even when we lose that battle, God offers grace and forgiveness and commands us to do the same. People who do bad things deserve appropriate compassion and help not because they supposedly "can't help it;" but simply because they are human beings, made in the image of God.

But we also deserve the dignity of facing the consequences of our actions. The second mistake in efforts to "stop the stigma" of bad behavior is the suggestion that those consequences, as well as healthy guilt and even shame, can't play a motivating role in our moral formation. The Bible testifies that it does.

Friends of mine who have recovered from addiction or who are active in addiction ministry all say that the cliche is true: the first step to recovery really is admitting you have a problem. We block that important step if we try to convince those suffering that they bear no responsibility for their behavior.

My friend Dr. Matthew Sleeth, and emergency room physician who wrote a book about the Christian response to suicide, spoke to our Wilberforce Weekend audience last year about his research. He said the common denominator that he found in testimonies from those who survived a suicide attempt or ultimately chose not to go through with it was that they believed, to one degree or another, that suicide would be wrong.

But that assertion that something could be wrong requires a consistent moral standard against which we can measure our inclinations and behavior. Christianity - not cultural tastes - is the only worldview that offers a fully formed and consistent moral standard; built on God's design for the world.

I want to be clear here that the chemical components, including genetic predispositions, and even outside factors like predatory pharmaceutical companies are very real contributors to things like suicide and addiction. But removing stigma by suggesting people aren't still responsible for their moral choices forfeits that very real and apparently motivating sense that we don't want to do something wrong.

This is a casualty of a culture that continues to distance itself from its Christian moral foundation. Some theologians suggest the loss of "cultural Christianity" is good, in that it will reveal those truly committed to Jesus, as opposed to those only claiming Christianity for its social advantages. But the loss of cultural Christianity will still leave much to mourn, including the healthy social norms and stigmas, based on the Biblical moral standard, that protect us from our inherent sinfulness.

Christians should always practice empathy. And we should be ready to help when and where it's appropriate. That kind of love holds room for healthy stigma, and it doesn't require pretending there are no consequences to our choices. That's the deep, consistent love of the gospel.

Most of the time, Twitter's a wasteland, a dark world of rancor, recriminations, and moral posturing. But every once in a while, to quote the classic movie Dumb and Dumber, it goes and redeems itself…

Anthony Bradley, professor at The King's College in New York, recently noted on Twitter that most father/son photos on social media are of younger sons. It's like they stop once the boy hits teenage years, the time when a father's influence becomes most crucial in a young man's development.

So he challenged dads to celebrate their teenage sons by posting photos with the hashtag #ThisIsMyBelovedTeenageSon. And proud dads, from all walks of life, did, proudly posing with their sons for all the world to see.

Good for them. Popular culture portrays fathers in such diminished, negative ways, but studies consistently show not only that dads matter, but that they're essentially for flourishing. The full family of mom and dad is part of God's blessing to people everywhere.

Two weeks ago, in Colleyville, TX, a monster reappeared. Malik Faisal Akram walked into Congregation Beth Israel and demanded that the United States release a scientist connected to Al Qaeda. At first, news outlets and even the FBI seemed hesitant to ascribe any motive to the attack or even to name him. Yet, the assailant himself said, "I want to kill Jews."

This sort of thing is far too common. As Social commentator Abigail Shrier described on Twitter: "10 years ago, my synagogue and my kids' Jewish school had no armed guards. Now, both have a near platoon of special forces guys. In the last 5 years, my kids' Jewish camp & my kosher grocer have hired armed guards b/c of threats. This is how Jews live now. Americans should know."

Antisemitism has been a scourge of the human race since the ancient world. Too often throughout history, Christians have not only turned a blind eye but even took part themselves. That this still happens in America, even after the long shadow of the 20th century's greatest horrors, is incomprehensible.

Each year, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the world takes stock of one its darkest moments. The Holocaust is among those historical markers that force us to face the reality of evil. Especially in a culture like ours, that too often thinks in "Dr. Evil" comedic caricatures, we must never forget the true potential of humanity.

The Holocaust that was perpetrated by the Nazi regime is the most well-known horror of a horror-filled twentieth century. In many ways, it is now shorthand for the reality of evil in this world: eleven million dead, six million of these specifically targeted Jews. No discussion of the problem of evil or of the Second World War is complete without an extensive commentary on the realities of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen.

Whatever it takes, we must never forget.

Many in our generation first came to know the terror of this part of our history through films such as Schindler's List, Life is Beautiful, or The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. For others, it was a book assigned in school, such as The Diary of Anne Frank, Man's Search for Meaning, or Eyewitness to Auschwitz, where a narrator describes three years working in the crematorium. The Holocaust Museums in Washington D.C. and Jerusalem are also invaluable tools of our cultural memories.

Even as we learn this history, we must also remind ourselves that this "enlightened age" is no less capable of great evil than our supposedly more primitive ancestors. The lie of moral evolution is a particularly pernicious and dangerous one. Future generations must know of the limits of the human condition, lest they too get lost in illusions of technological grandeur.

After all, the Holocaust was not the work of some oppressed people, seeking to redress sins inflicted in the past. Neither was it done by backwoods, uneducated folks, so ill-informed about life that they lashed out against any and all who were different. This was done by citizens of what was arguably the most scientifically advanced and best-educated nation in the world at that time.

As portrayed in an excellently unnerving HBO movie, Conspiracy, the leaders of German society, military, legal, and political, came together at what was called the Wannsee Conference, on January 20, 1942. They thought the matter through, planned, and then did it.

Recently, on the 80th anniversary of that horrible gathering, religious and political leaders, both Christian and Jewish from across Europe and North America gathered to clarify why we must continue to oppose anti-Semitism in all forms, and to address the antisemitic ideas, laws, and spirit that is still alive and well today. As one German participant put it, "It is the duty of Christians to make the concerns of their Jewish compatriots their common concern."

Christians, in fact, should be the first to condemn and counter any hatred or desecration poured out on any fellow image-bearer, including those through whom God revealed His Word and brought His Son into His world. At their meeting, on the 80th anniversary of the Wannsee Conference, the European Coalition for Israel issued a Declaration entitled: "Fight Antisemitism, Protect Jewish Life." It's worth a close read and our full consideration, especially at a time when so much of the world seems at risk of forgetting.

John and Shane field a question about where Christians find grounding for freedom. Then they discuss a few questions related to a recent commentary on death and dying before helping a listener process the rise in books that are challenging Christian history and tradition that are impacting the church. To close, John answers a question from a listener who asks for advice in raising a strong-willed child.

John and Shane field a question about where Christians find grounding for freedom. Then they discuss a few questions related to a recent commentary on death and dying before helping a listener process the rise in books that are challenging Christian history and tradition that are impacting the church. To close, John answers a question from a listener who asks for advice in raising a strong-willed child.

John and Shane field a question about where Christians find grounding for freedom. Then they discuss a few questions related to a recent commentary on death and dying before helping a listener process the rise in books that are challenging Christian history and tradition that are impacting the church. To close, John answers a question from a listener who asks for advice in raising a strong-willed child.

An eight-year court battle over a bakery cake in the United Kingdom is finally over. Earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights declined to hear the case brought by Gareth Lee, a gay activist who sued a Christian-owned bakery in 2014 after the shop declined to decorate a cake with the words "Support Gay Marriage."

This leaves in place Britain's Supreme Court's 2018 ruling, which said the bakery didn't discriminate against the customer by refusing to print a message.

This is good news.

When Lee first sued the bakery he said publicly that their refusal to print the message made him feel like a, quote, "lesser person." This points to how vapid modern notions of identity have become. There are real consequences of disconnecting people from their Creator, and leaving them with no real reference point than their own self-expression.

The Biblical idea of the image of God is so much better than anything else on offer in the marketplace of ideas.

"Love and marriage, love and marriage," crooned Frank Sinatra, "go together like a horse and carriage." Today, however, an ever-growing majority of Americans seem to think marriage is just as outdated as a social institution as a horse and carriage are as a transportation technology. And this includes those who have historically championed marriage as essential to a healthy and flourishing society.

Overall, belief in the importance of marriage is at an all-time low. According to Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, just 29% of Americans say it is "very important" for a couple who have children together to be legally married. That's down from 49% in 2006.

Given that, during those intervening sixteen years, marriage was both legally redefined and constantly assaulted by advocates of so-called "alternative" family models, these numbers aren't that surprising. Nor is it surprising that a strong majority of respondents now believe sex outside marriage and having a baby outside of marriage is morally acceptable.

What is surprising is the dramatic shift in beliefs about marriage among those groups that have historically defended and championed the institution. Just 36% of self-identified Republicans now say marriage is "very important" for couples who have children together, compared with 62% in 2006. And, incredibly, only 41% of self-identified "conservatives" now agree with that statement, which is down 21 points since 2006.

How did party demographics shift so dramatically over the last sixteen years? Did the "populist turn" of the party contribute to these discouraging numbers? Is this shift the cause or the effect of other policy shifts?

Related research suggests that America has a growing "marriage divide." In other words, more and more working-class couples are choosing cohabitation over marriage, and seeing marriage increasingly as a kind of status symbol of the elite. And there's another divide too, the one between fiscal and social conservatives. That one has been growing for some time.

On one side, there are those who merely want a smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient government. On the other hand, there are those who champion the ideals of life, marriage, and religious liberty. The label "conservative" is used to refer to those who hold one, the other, or both positions. What these Gallup numbers now indicate is that those who hold socially conservative positions, much less prioritize them, are getting rarer and rarer, especially among the young.

This is not only a loss for those who care deeply about these social values, but also futile for those who think that a smaller government is possible without strong social institutions, especially marriage. Decades of research show that children raised by married parents not only enjoy better outcomes in almost every area of life, they tend to be more productive and able to self-govern. According to the Brookings Institute, children of married parents "do better in school, develop stronger cognitive and non-cognitive skills, are more likely to go to college, earn more, and are more likely to go on to form stable marriages themselves."

This is not to say, of course, that every child from a married home succeeds. They don't. And there are, of course, many heroic single parents who successfully raise children in less-than-ideal situations and many heroic children who overcome incredible hardship as they grow into adulthood. Statistics are not destiny for individuals, but they are destiny for societies.

Marriage is simply the best means of keeping both parents—especially fathers—involved in a child's life. And, the science is settled: moms and dads are irreplaceable, in different ways and for different reasons.

In other words, marriage and the family help produce the kinds of citizens that make small government even possible. When marriages and families fail or decline, governments must provide all kinds of additional (and expensive) aspects to their social safety nets to make up for the terrible loss of this most basic institution. For a society to flourish, there is simply no substitute for the family.

That's why it is an oxymoron to claim to be a conservative while downplaying the importance of marriage and the family. The reason is simple: marriage is a non-negotiable part of reality. It isn't something arbitrary or socially constructed, like a speed limit, which can be changed or expanded with little consequence. It's real, like gravity, built into the world, whether we recognize it or not. To ignore it is dangerous and, ultimately, futile.

Any political vision that treats marriage and family as optional or fungible, even if it goes by the label "conservative," is destined to fail. This isn't a matter of updating our definitions. If we lose our belief in marriage and the family as the foundation of a healthy and flourishing society, there will soon be very little left for "conservatives" to conserve.

"The U.S. is facing an aging population, a shortage of caregivers, a dearth of affordable housing, and an increase in social isolation that threatens wellbeing," wrote Clare Ansberry in The Wall Street Journal earlier this year.

It's true. Covid-19 only deepened an existing crisis for seniors, who were the most susceptible to both the virus and prolonged social isolation.

A solution is desperately needed, but in the words of Ansberry, "some think what we really need is Magic." She's referring to an acronym, coined by geriatrician William Thomas, that stands for "Multi-Ability, multi-Generational, Inclusive Co-living."

The idea is to build neighborhoods where "young and old, families and singles, live side-by-side, supported by inclusive design, technology, and neighbors."

If that sounds like a good idea, it's because people were designed to live in intergenerational communities.

It's a model that reflects a much older, much deeper design: the institution of the family. Not just parents and kids, but extended families are part of God's original design to protect and care for one another, especially as we age.

With the breakdown of the family, that's something we've lost sight of. It's worth getting back.