Breakpoint

Several years ago, in a documentary called "Religulous" (clever, right?), Bill Maher claimed that most of the story of Christ, especially the parts about His birth, were cribbed from pagan mythology. After all, Maher claimed, the Egyptian God Horus was born of a virgin on December 25th, was baptized, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, and ultimately died and rose again. Christianity, said Maher, is nothing but a cheap knockoff.

The problem is, as numerous critics have pointed out, Maher's claims are complete nonsense. No original source material backs up his description of Horus or, for that matter, of Mithras or Krishna, two other deities Maher claims early Christians copied.

As ridiculous as "Religulous" is, some of its same claims about the origins of Christian holidays remain and tend to surface most at Christmas time. For example, how and when did the Church determine that date of December 25th? Was it to compete with the Roman festival of Saturnalia? And what about trees, and gifts, and lights? Where did all of that come from? And, what about those pagan stories that resemble Christ, of sons of the gods and "corn kings" who die and rise again?

Recently, historian and long-time friend of the Colson Center, Dr. Glenn Sunshine joined Shane Morris to talk about these things on the Upstream podcast. Glenn is a favorite teaching faculty of the Colson Fellows and, I can assure you, he is no Grinch. During his conversation with Shane, Dr. Sunshine answered some of the core questions about Christmas.

For instance, Sunshine argued that December 25th was not chosen as the date for Christmas in order to co-opt a pagan solstice festival. More likely, it was based on an ancient Jewish belief that people are conceived on the date of their deaths. Since Christ died on or around March 25th, some Church Fathers believed that Christ must have been conceived on that day and born nine months later… December 25th.

Was this Jesus' actual birthday? No one knows, of course. Still, the choice to celebrate Christ's birth at the end of December reflects a "sacramental" view of reality, which Christians have held through the ages.

In this more "enchanted" view of the world, one that held sway in the Early and Medieval Church, nature itself was understood to have signified the life of Christ. The visible death of winter—the withering of the leaves, the dormancy of the ground, and the longer nights—symbolized to many Christians of centuries past the death Jesus came to die. The turning of the seasons and the increase in daylight that symbolized the dawning of the Light of the World in a manger.

Many of our traditions, like Christmas trees, probably began as symbols of life in the midst of death. Dr. Sunshine suggests that this mingling of symbols of atonement with the joyous news of the Savior's birth can even be detected in the Gospel narratives. For instance, could those swaddling clothes be the burial cloth Joseph carried with him in case of death?

Even more, the pagan myths that atheists often exaggerate to attack Christianity, Dr. Sunshine thinks, offer tantalizing echoes of Christ in other religions. C. S. Lewis also recognized this when he wrote in Mere Christianity of what he called "good dreams," or "those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men."

For Lewis, these echoes were not evidence of religious plagiarism, but that Christ is the "true myth," the waking reality behind these "good dreams." To celebrate Christmas well, focused on Christ as opposed to "stuff," we do more than repeat old traditions. We are glorifying the King of Kings who came to save His people from darkness and make all things new.

You can get Shane's podcast with Glenn Sunshine at breakpoint.org, and the latest "What Would You Say" video tackles this same question, "Is Christmas a Pagan Holiday?" Watch it as a family, share it on social media, or with your church to help others answer this question that still stumps too many of us.

Last week, I received a stunning email from a gentleman who had, only days before, learned from doctors that he and his wife would likely not be able to conceive children. The doctor did say that, in their case, in vitro fertilization could be successful. The email described the couple's decision:

"We just can't go forward with IVF. I know it could satisfy one of the deepest desires of our hearts, but the cost is unacceptable. A little boy or girl created with our own genetic material is not morally worth the many inevitable deaths of his or her embryonic brothers and sisters."

I'm not sure what's more stunning: the moral conviction shown by this young couple or just how deeply they understand the moral realities of artificial reproductive technologies. In a culture that views children as products instead of image-bearers, many Christians feel lost when faced with similar decisions. We hear from them all the time, and, while I'm grateful to be a resource for those wrestling with these issues, the Church has, too often, simply failed young couples in this area, both in communicating a theology of children and in helping them navigate the ethical challenges of infertility.

Whether from Scriptural stories (like Abraham and Sarah, Samuel's mother Hannah, and John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth) or from personal experience, to say that infertility is painful is an understatement, as anyone who has gone through it can attest. Even if lacking a clear ethic on reproductive technology, Christians tend to value children more than the wider culture. In this context, technology can seem like answer to the prayers of those who wish to conceive their own children but cannot. It's understandable why pastors and fellow believers would be loath to counsel against it.

All of this made the moral clarity found in this email so stark. This couple acknowledges that their deep, God-given desire for children is more than a matter of personal preference or a choice to further their happiness. Rather, it's an inherent part of their marriage. Yet, they've sought to understand the moral complexities of IVF, realizing that means are not justified by well-intentioned, or even Godly, ends.

Listen to this line again: "A little boy or girl created with our own genetic material is not morally worth the many inevitable deaths of his or her embryonic brothers and sisters." In most IVF clinics, couples consent to create more embryos than they intend to parent. They do that to increase the chances of success through various rounds of implantation. It's a strategy built around the probability that not all of the embryos will survive. If more embryos survive implantation than desired, a so-called "voluntary reduction" is often recommended and performed. That's another word for abortion.

To be clear, there are fertility specialists and clinics, many of them Christian, who, while not finding IVF unethical per se, refuse this pragmatic sacrifice of human life. Unlike a practice that has resulted in over a million abandoned embryos, subject to custody battles, or being discarded as medical waste, these clinics require that only one embryo is created and implanted at a time or that the couple will agree to implant all embryos created.

All of this is a poignant reminder that talk about Christian ethics and worldview is not some disembodied, esoteric exercise for the theologically nerdy. Like the couple that wrote to us, the real-life issues Christians face in this cultural moment have flesh-and-blood implications. "Forgoing IVF is hard," they wrote, "but we have peace that it is right and good."

This couple has chosen the narrow way Jesus referred to in His Sermon on the Mount. They've chosen the way of Mary, who, when told by the angel that unexpected motherhood was her future, said "let it be to me according to Your Word."

I don't know precisely how, but I pray God will bless this couple with peace and in amazing ways for their faithfulness. I pray others, facing the pain of infertility, will follow their courageous example and do the hard work required to make the right decisions. I pray God will equip His Church and its shepherds to prepare His people to live faithfully in this cultural moment.

If the Christmas story is a cosmic drama, we would do well to know all we can about the cast of characters onstage at Bethlehem and beyond. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, of course. But what about the innkeeper? The angels and the shepherds? Simeon and Anna. And even "the surprising people" Jesus' family tree.

What does God's selection of this cast of supporting characters say about the star Himself, Jesus the King? Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, John Stonestreet welcomes Dan Darling, the author of the beautiful and insightful book "The Characters of Christmas: 10 Unlikely People Caught Up in the Story of Jesus."

Sixty-two years ago, a young Italian woman named Edi Bocelli, pregnant with her first child, was hospitalized with appendicitis. Her doctors advised her to abort the child because, they said, "the baby would be born with some disability." A devout Catholic, Edi Bocelli refused, but the doctors' prognosis was correct. Her son Andrea was born with congenital glaucoma and was completely blind by age 12.

Despite being unable to see, Andrea was born with other gifts. One, in particular, stands out. His voice has been called "the most beautiful in the world." According to Celine Dion, "if God would have a singing voice, he must sound a lot like Andrea Bocelli."

In fact, Bocelli's albums have sold over 90 million copies. His 1999 album "Sacred Arias," is the biggest selling album by a solo classical artist in history, and his 1996 single, Con te partirò ("With You I Shall Leave") is one of the biggest selling singles of all time, putting him on a list that includes Lady Gaga, Maroon 5, and Adele. Bocelli has sung for presidents, prime ministers, and popes. He was even named one of the world's "Fifty Most Beautiful People" by People Magazine.

In 2010, Bocelli told his mother's story, in a video entitled "Andrea Bocelli—His Unknown Story That Touches Hearts." Sitting at the piano, after describing his mother's decision to not abort him, he adds, "Maybe I'm partisan, but I can say that it was the right choice."

Bocelli told an Italian newspaper, that he was inspired to share his story by a missionary in Haiti who works with children and women facing difficult pregnancies. "Because of my personal convictions as a devout Catholic," said Bocelli, "I am not only fighting against something, I am fighting for something - and I am for life."

The video went viral. Bocelli said he hopes it will "help comfort those who are in difficult situations and who sometimes just need to feel that they are not alone." In this way, Bocelli's story is reminiscent of the important work of pregnancy care centers, which also exist to remind women facing a difficult pregnancy that they are not alone. The comfort and support they provide helps women choose life, just as Bocelli's mother did.

Especially at this time of year, Bocelli's story reminds us of the part a challenging pregnancy played in the story of our redemption. It's easy for us to forget that God gave Mary the option to say "no." Her reply, "may it be done according to thy will," are similar to the words that Edi Bocelli and countless other women have echoed throughout the ages.

And here's just a small sample of "the most beautiful voice in the world, Andrea Bocelli singing, "Glory to You, Christ Jesus, you will reign today and forever. Glory to you, you who will soon come!"

Glory to you, Christ Jesus, you will reign today and for ever Glory to you! You will soon come; you alone are our hope!

The Colson Center team has prepared a free downloadable and beautifully illustrated e-book, "Emmanuel! Readings for Advent." It's available at BreakPoint.org.

And, by the way, Andrea Bocelli is holding a Christmas concert, to be streamed online around the world, on December 12. It's available on pay-per view. We'll link you to that as well at BreakPoint.org

Given the post-election turmoil and growing distrust of Americans in our nation's institutions, John Stonestreet and Shane Morris discuss the health of America's system of government, what Chuck Colson once called "the greatest experiment in Liberty ever undertaken."

Also on this episode: Are we on the cusp of a COVID baby bust? With the American fertility rate well below replacement level, what does it say about our culture that fewer people are having--or even want to have--babies? And what are the ramifications for our economy and our society? Have we lost hope?

In the meantime, NASDAQ is asking the Federal Trade Commission to approve new guidelines for companies listed on the exchange concerning the diversity of their corporate boards. John and Shane discuss woke capitalism and the proliferation of identity groups.

John and Shane wind up the show with their recommendations for the week. Why not actually read Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol"? And John is beyond excited about . . . the return of NCAA basketball.

Among the commitments made for his administration's first 100 days in office, Joe Biden has promised to reverse Trump-era policies on the admission of refugees into the United States. Specifically, Biden has promised to raise the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. during his first year in office to 125 thousand , a significant increase from the current levels of around 25 thousand per year.

Given the increasingly grave threats faced by religious minorities in many regions of the world, especially Christians, a careful change of national policy in this area is desperately needed. To understand why, the refugee issue must first be untangled from the larger issue of immigration.

Immigration levels are determined by a combination of factors, mostly having to do with national economic interests. Refugee levels are, or at least should be, a matter of humanitarian concern. In recent years, the two issues have been conflated, partly by government failures on immigration and partly by increasingly passionate political loyalties. They shouldn't be conflated.

A refugee, as officially defined by the Refugee Resettlement Program, is someone who fled their country because of a "well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." The number of refugees around the world has reached its highest point since the end of World War II. Most are from the Middle East, where wars throughout the region have caused millions, including millions of Christians, to flee their homes. ISIS, for example, was birthed out of instability in Iraq and Syria, and their targeting of Christians and Yazidis was eventually (and rightly) called genocide.

In African countries such as Upper Volta and, especially, Nigeria, Christians are broadly and violently targeted by their non-Christians neighbors. In Nigeria, where Boko Haram and militant Fulani herdsman have killed, injured, kidnapped, and displaced thousands of Christians, the situation has also been labeled "genocide" by the Internal Committee on Nigeria.

In China, the Communist Party has not only declared war on Christians, with pastors and Christian leaders both on the mainland and in Hong Kong fleeing and seeking sanctuary elsewhere but has also targeted the Muslim Uighur population in ways reminiscent of the Nazi Holocaust.

About a year ago, I noted that certain promises made to persecuted Christians by the Trump Administration, including by Vice-President Mike Pence, had not been kept. In particular, the number of refugee admissions into the United States has been reduced to a level that Mindy Belz of World Magazine has labeled "cruel and unusual."

To be clear, the administration has pursued "a new, practical focus on assisting refugees where they are concentrated," using foreign assistance and other tools "to resolve the crisis points that drive displacement in the first place." The administration also appointed former governor Sam Brownback as the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom and hosted two international ministerial conferences for advancing religious freedom. New approaches like this are needed and are welcome. Ultimately, we want the number of refugees reduced, and that will require that religious freedom and protections for religious minorities be advanced around the world. And, simply put, most people don't want to leave their countries, their families, and their homes behind.

In other words, there are things that can be done to help refugees, both Christian and non-Christian, that do not involve resettling them into the U.S. Any and all effective policy advancements to that end ought not be reversed by an incoming administration clearly committed to reversing almost everything from the previous administration.

At the same time, as more and more people are forced to flee religious persecution around the world, the United States will need to admit more refugees. This is especially true of those fleeing persecution in China and Iran, where our ability to resolve crisis points on the ground is limited. This can be done without compromising our commitment to vet the situations and stories of those seeking refuge. Already, refugees are far more strictly vetted than others seeking to enter the United States.

Time will tell if the U.S. will open its doors. Whether we do or not will tell us what kind of nation we are.

Since the beginning of COVID-19 lockdowns, plenty have joked about the expected pandemic-induced baby boom. In more recent months, however, those predictions have changed. For example, last week in The Atlantic, Joe Pinsker joined the growing chorus predicting a 2021 "COVID baby bust."

While there's not a lot of direct evidence for this pessimism, at least not yet, Pinsker's predictions are the safest bet based on what might be called "pre-existing conditions." Like the physical comorbidities that contributed to COVID complications for many patients, there are also cultural comorbidities which indicate maternity wards could be eerily quiet this time next year.

How quiet? Pinsker cites economists who predict somewhere between 300,000 to 500,000 missing pregnancies due to COVID-related economic strain. And even those bleak numbers, say some economists, could be too optimistic. The volume of Google searches for pregnancy-related terms has dropped off significantly, reports the same Atlantic article, which could signal a fertility shortfall of as much as 15 percent in the coming months. One survey of Americans under 40 found that 17 percent who currently don't have kids now plan to delay even longer because of the pandemic, with most of those reporting less interest in having children at all.

To be clear, in light of birth rate trends throughout the developed world, this shortfall is like losing a handful of dirt in the Grand Canyon. America's fertility rate was already significantly below replacement levels, at an average of 1.7 children per woman over a lifetime. This number keeps falling further and further from the average rate of 2.1 required to maintain the population.

The most common explanation is that millennials, who currently make up the majority of the population in their childbearing years, were handed an economic raw deal. Having come of age during the Great Recession, they lacked the head start and resources their parents had to build families. While this is part of the truth, there's a lot more to be said.

For example, neither the economic slumps of the Great Depression nor of World War II resulted in a fertility slump this persistent. The oldest millennials are entering middle age, but still only 32 percent of their generation is married. There's no indication of a second Baby Boom on the way anytime soon. Instead, a huge percentage of Americans of childbearing age are simply choosing a childless lifestyle.

Recently, the "Conversation of our Generation" twitter feed posted two covers of "The New Yorker" side by side to illustrate the point. The first cover is from December 1957 and features a painting of a young family with two children admiring the home they've freshly decorated for Christmas. The second, from December of this year, features a young woman sipping wine and gazing at her laptop in an apartment surrounded by cats.

Of course, there are dramatically different economic realities behind the two pictures, but there are also dramatically different choices behind them. An article in Mic published earlier this year entitled, "11 Brutally Honest Reasons Millennials Don't Want Kids," quoted young adults citing all the reasons they don't want kids: overpopulation, the physical toll of pregnancy, parenting challenges, and political fears. One woman simply said, "Children have always irritated me."

If the dire predictions of a COVID Baby Bust come true, it will point to a condition that existed prior to the pandemic. Ours is culture committed to immediate gratification, which no longer thinks of the long-term future of our society enough to value children or the family. At the same time, we're facing a near-term future filled with aging adults, who will increasingly lack meaningful connections with family members. To understand why that could be a problem, see the short documentary shot in Japan last year called "Dying Alone."

The call to action, the only one that can reverse this trend seems too simple to be effective. But, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man in king. In simple terms, the Church must re-catechize its people of the centrality of marriage and the God-given good of children. Christians must make different choices and urge our children to make different choices. Christians must have different priorities. Otherwise, a generation from now, what happened in ICUs this year will be overshadowed by what didn't happen in our maternity wards.

John and Shane field a challenge on using data to take a stronger stance on the covid situation around the country.

The pair also field a question on the Trinity, and Shane provides some good resources to help build a Christian perspective that is rooted in Scripture.

To close John and Shane field a comment that helped a family navigate infertility. Through the Colson Center's presentation on IVF technology, the couple making the comment share that they were able to build a Christian view that has legs to stand. They thanked John and Shane for their work to help this couple hold a consistent Christian worldview.

In early March, the University of California San Francisco held a panel discussion of infectious disease specialists on a new virus that had, at that point, killed 41 Americans. These experts not only estimated that 60 to 70 percent of America's population would eventually contract the virus, but that our best attempts to contain it, either through lockdowns or contact tracing, would be, in their words, "basically futile."

Today, nine months later, the predictions of this particular panel of experts have turned out like most other COVID-19 predictions: right on some things, wrong on others. It's not clear just how effective all of the quarantining, lock-downing, social distancing, and masking has been in reducing the number of infections, or why, despite more data, our assumptions about COVID-19 remain largely unchanged. And, of course, we've yet to reckon with the economic, educational, and mental health consequences of the policy paths we've chosen.

What is clear, more clear than ever in fact, are the base set of assumptions we now operate from as Westerners and Americans. Catastrophes like COVID always reveal worldview. To borrow a phrase philosopher Craig Gay uses in his book The Way of the Modern World, we are "practical atheists." A subtle, operational-level form of secularism, practical atheism is not necessarily to believe that God does not exist. Rather, it's to live as if God does not exist.

Professor Gay identifies two features of a culture operating from a deeply engrained practical atheism. First, there is an illusion of control. If there is no Higher Power determining the course of human events or judging the morality of our actions, the world is a place for us to make and remake according to our wishes. Grand leaps in science, medicine, and technology only deepen the faith we put in ourselves.

At the heart of our illusions of control is the assumption that world is totally understandable. We actually believe, Professor Gay says, not only that we can "comprehend reality in its totality," but that "we are capable of rendering it stable and predictable." In other words, we will ultimately make the world "work for us."

That's a really attractive proposition, of course. However, what happens when we face something beyond our understanding, something that is an existential threat to the "convenient fiction" of our control? Like a global pandemic? The answer can be seen in how so many U.S. governors approached last week's Thanksgiving holiday: travel restrictions and curfews, bans on indoor gatherings, shaming even the idea of family gatherings for everyone, not just those at higher risk. The Governor of my home state of Colorado said that gathering with family for Thanksgiving was like "putting a loaded pistol to Grandma's head."

How quickly we went from the "we acknowledge we can't control this" of the UCSF panel of experts to the "we absolutely can and will control this" of elected officials. The shift from "most of us are going to get sick but let's care for and protect the vulnerable" to "everyone must avoid getting sick at all costs" is a significant one. Now, if anyone contracts COVID, it's not because it's a novel virus we don't understand, but because someone failed. Practical atheists want control. When control is lost, someone is to blame.

This brings up another characteristic of "practical atheism" that Professor Gay rightly identifies: anxiety. Anxiety is the inevitable reaction when we realize just how out-of-our-control this fallen world is, and how fragile our shoulders – which now bear the weight of the world without God – really are.

It's here that we see how much "practical atheism" has permeated the Church. Even for Christians who worship God on Sundays, it's hard not to give in to promises that our doctors, or our politicians, or our favorite celebrity preachers, or our organic vitamin regimen, or our purity rings will fix the world, or at least allow us to control all the scary stuff in it. And, we too, are tempted to look for someone (or someones) to blame for all that seems out of control with our world, whether a global pandemic or election results.

That's why this moment is such an incredible opportunity for the Church. It will reveal our worldview, too. A Christian vision allows us to fully acknowledge our human limitations to understand everything, much less control everything. And yet, in this self-awareness, we are anxious for nothing, because we know there is a God who not only does understand but oversees the world He created and loves.

Many Christians, especially when it comes to LGBT-related issues, have bought into what might be called "the inevitability thesis." Nearly everything in our culture has convinced them to assume that it is futile for anyone to resist their same-sex attractions. And, any attempt to help someone, especially young people, reduce their behaviors and attractions is just as futile, and probably even illegal.

After all, many believe, legislatures have adopted and courts have upheld bans on such things. Pastors, youth pastors, Christian-school teachers, entire counseling degree programs at Christian colleges and seminaries, and plenty of parents have embraced the "inevitability thesis" when it comes to LGBT issues, and now refuse either to address these questions at all, or, if they do, it's to counter the cultural consensus they assume has been settled.

A ruling last week from the 11th Circuit court challenges the inevitability thesis.

In 2017, the city of Boca Raton and the county of Palm Beach in Florida joined a growing list of jurisdictions that have adopted bans on "Sexual Orientation Change Efforts." By ordinance, licensed professional counselors are prohibited from treating minors with the goal of "changing [their] sexual orientation or gender identity." When Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton, two licensed counselors, challenged the ordinances in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, their chances of success seemed slim to none. After all, similar bans had already been challenged and upheld in the 9th and 3rd Circuit Courts.

Judge Britt Grant of the 11th Circuit, however, sided with Otto and Hamilton. The counselors told the court that the ordinances "infringe on their constitutional right to speak freely with clients," including those who have sought counseling because of "sincerely held religious beliefs conflicting with homosexuality." Judge Grant found these free-speech restrictions of the ordinances to be "presumptively unconstitutional."

While Judge Grant acknowledged that the kind of therapy Otto and Hamilton practice to be "highly controversial," which is why dozens of states and municipalities have banned it, the ordinances applied only "to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed." The First Amendment, Judge Grant clarified, "has no carveout for controversial speech." Despite the government's "legitimate authority to protect children," speech, no matter how controversial, "cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them."

"If the [therapists'] perspective is not allowed here," Grant concluded, "then the [government's] perspective can be banned elsewhere." In other words, what's sauce for the goose could easily become sauce for the gander. Thus, speech should not be restricted merely because some people object to what is being said.

Not only does Grant's decision create what's called "a conflict in the circuits," making it all the more probable that the Supreme Court will have to consider the issue, there is an implicit lesson for anyone tempted by the inevitability thesis. After California and other jurisdictions passed laws restricting what counselors could discuss with their clients, many Christians and Christian institutions chose to conform to ideas and practices they knew to be wrong, so as not to put their licensure, accreditation, or some form of the state's blessing, at risk. The pressure they felt was, of course, real, but they were mistaken to think there was no further legal recourse available. A similar mistake was made a couple years ago by a Christian adoption agency who had been told they had to place children with same-sex couples. A judge decided against the state in that case as well.

Of course, it's not clear what decision a newly remade Supreme Court may return on any of these issues. That's why the best advice in times like ours remains that given by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, advice we were all reminded of by Rod Dreher: We must not live by lies. While there may be no call for us to stand on everywhere street corner or counter-protest every pride march, the greater challenge for every mom, dad, pastor, professor, youth pastor, or professional counselor, is never, ever to allow ourselves to say or go along with what is not true. Especially when it comes to what it means to be human.