Breakpoint

In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis imagines how an experienced demonic operative might advise a younger, less experienced understudy in the intricacies of counter-Christian spiritual warfare. In one passage especially relevant right now, Lewis describes how politics could be used to tempt and thwart a Christ-follower. The setting is World War II Britain. "Uncle Screwtape" says it this way:

"Let [your patient] begin by treating … Patriotism or Pacifism as part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the 'cause,' in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism.

Note the progression: first, politics is part of religion. Then, politics is the most important part of religion. Then, religion becomes part of politics. It's genius.

To be clear, Lewis never advises that Christians ought abandon political engagement or political causes. He does, however, warn just how easily the enemy can use political engagement to confuse what are ends and what are means. Or, to use language we often employ at the Colson Center, when it comes politics, especially the high-stakes kind that defines the current climate, American Christians have a history of losing the Story in the chaos of the moment.

America is worth protecting and preserving, and Christians should always side with what is good, even if flawed. We have much to steward, including the historic recognition of God-given rights, a system of government designed to protect those rights, a Constitution that prioritizes our allegiance to God over any allegiance to the state, and a history of men and women whom God used, within the framework of that freedom, to spark revival, to confront our national sins, to secure civil rights, to found Christian institutions, and to send missionaries around the world.

However, as we rightly acknowledge the ways in which America has been a blessing for the Church, we can never confuse one for the other. It is the Church whose future is secure. It is to the Head of the Church that our allegiance ultimately and exclusively belongs. The Kingdom of God is the end of all of human history. It, and only it, can ever claim our highest loyalties.

Redirecting our loyalties is more tempting than we often care to admit in a context in which more and more of daily life is politicized, a reality that simultaneously reveals deep flaws in our current social order and elevates the stakes of each subsequent election. Whenever and wherever political realities invade spaces that properly belong to family, to community, to friendship, and to religion, Americans should push back.

For the Christian, however, the stakes are even higher. We have embraced Christ, who offers more than personal salvation. He offers a Kingdom that will have no end. He is not less than our personal Savior, but He is certainly more. He is the King. His throne is not threatened or vulnerable.

Loyalties, Lewis understood, are not lost in grand ways. Politics claims them in more subtle ways. As Uncle Screwtape wrote:

"Once you have made the World an end, and faith as a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours."

Chuck Colson famously said that salvation will never come on Air Force One. Neither will, for that matter, the antiChrist. The rule and reign of Jesus Christ does not stand or fall on this or any election. Rather, we see this moment, even this political moment that holds so much consequence for our nation, in light of what is ultimately true: Christ is risen! Christ is Lord! Christ is making all things new!

By all means, we ought labor and canvas and advocate and persuade to the best of our ability. We ought want the true and good to win the day on Tuesday. But we will not serve this moment or any righteous cause well unless we keep certain things straight. We must not confuse the end with means. We must not confuse the King of Heaven and earth with the princes of this world. We must not confuse the potential of politics with the hope of resurrection.

Joni Eareckson Tada notes that everyone's trust is broken. She points out that we don't trust the news anymore, we don't trust people's motives or what they say.

The prophet Isaiah wrote with a similar backdrop. He wrote, "See, darkeness covers the Earth, thick darkness over the peoples." Isaiah was called to intercede on behalf of Israel. It is with this backdrop that Joni calls us to pray for the United States of America during election week.

Joni stands on the themes and background of the prophet Isaiah, quoting, 'But the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light and kings to the brightness of your dawn.'"

Join us in praying for our nation, that all might come to see their need for Christ and would find purpose in the light of Jesus.

Amy Coney Barrett receives praise from the Girl Scouts. The group subsequently received a backlash from culture after the positive tweet. John Stonestreet and Shane Morris provide clarity on constitutional originalism, what it means for the Supreme Court, and the challenge of being pro-woman in opposition to pro-women groups.

John and Shane then discuss a new finding from Bradford Wilcox that praises a drop in divorce rates during the Coronavirus. The pair highlight the leading measure, that more couples are reporting happiness in their marriage since the start of COVID-19.

John talks about the culture's pressure to make marriage a transactional organization. He notes the adjustment in focus of marriage to working towards the completion of a project. The analysis provides hope as COVID-19 continues to rage in the current culture.

Shifting to recommendations, Shane offered theologian Alister Roberts Youtube channel. He notes that Alister loves the Bible as he pulls literature components from Scripture and shows the interconnectedness of Scripture. He is currently going through the entire Bible, passage-by-passage to highlight the theme and cross references in Scripture.

John shifted the recommendations to athletics, highlight the story of Kenny Sailors. Sailors developed the jump shot for Basketball. John notes that Sailors lived a well lived life as a girls Basketball coach in Alaska. Sailors' story was made into a movie thanks to the financing of Stephan Curry, the famous Golden State Warriors player who many claim has perfected the jump shot. John is recommending the movie documenting Sailors' life.

Recommendations:

Theologian Alister Roberts on Youtube

Alister's Adversaria - Alister Roberts Podcast

Kenny Sailors Story - Jump Shot

Several months ago, I asked several friends and ministry leaders to help us pray our way through the upcoming election season. For weeks now, each Wednesday morning at 10:30 eastern time, thousands have joined us on Zoom and Facebook Live to pray for the church and the nation.

Common themes have emerged from Pastors such as Rick Warren and Bishop Felix Orji, to thought leaders such as Os Guinness and Bob Fu: Our trust must be in God, not in princes, and repentance must begin inside the church.

Now, just days before the election, I asked my friend and hero Joni Eareckson Tada to also lead us in prayer. She graciously agreed and provided it to us by video. Please come to breakpoint.org for a link to this entire video. Use it in your family and small group to pray for what's certain to be a chaotic election day and week. Share it widely with friends and family by email and social media.

In an incredible segment, Joni reflects on our role as citizens who love and follow Christ, and calls us to national righteousness:

"I hope you are ready to pray, because we are asking God to mercifully and powerfully mobilize His people, including you and me. We want to be mobilized to advance across this nation, all things that are true and good.

"Because the Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation. And it starts with prayer. In Hebrews chapter seven, we see an amazing picture of Jesus interceding about that very thing. It says there that He 'lives to intercede.'

"It's what Jesus is doing this minute. So right now, I want you to picture yourself in that throne room in the third heaven, would you? See yourself dropping to your knees next to your lord and savior.

"Join Him, would you right now in intercession, stand in the gap between God and the people of this nation? Plead for God's people to get serious about 2 Chronicles 7:14. Ask the Holy Spirit to sweep clean our hearts. Because if you and I cherish any sin, if we coddle any sinful habits, God will not hear us. Let's implore God on behalf of so many of our fellow Americans that desperately need the light of Christ's hope and salvation.

"The team has asked me to bring before you the needs of those who are most vulnerable in our country, and that includes the medically fragile, the weak, the elderly, those with disabilities, infants and pre born children --because I know that Jesus is praying for them.

"Just recently I saw on television, a national prominent athlete who developed ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. I was deeply moved by his story. Although he sat stiff and rigid in this wheelchair, he smiled as he puffed and sipped his mouth controls to steer his wheelchair.

"The next day, I kept running into people saying, "Man, you just see that guy on TV with his paralysis, isn't he an inspiration?" I smiled and nodded, but I thought, "Just last week, everyone was talking about assistant suicide for people like him with life threatening conditions."

"One day the star athlete in the wheelchair is positioned as a picture of courage. The next, he's a helpless victim for whom mercy killing seems very reasonable.

"Man, the times are dark. Surely you sense that. I know you sense the heaviness, the dark, sinister divisions, the lack of simple civility, even at the grocery store.

"Everyone's trust is broken. We don't trust the news. We don't trust people motives. Don't trust what they say.

"It is so like the times of Isaiah, where he groans, "See, darkness covers the Earth, thick darkness over the peoples."

"But, and here's where you come in as an intercessor. 'But the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light and kings to the brightness of your dawn.'

"Oh, that our nation might come to the light of Christ!"

The video continues with Joni leading us in prayer herself—placing specific requests before God.

A link to the whole video is available at BreakPoint.org. Please, join Joni, me, and thousands of others as we lift up the Church, the vulnerable, and our nation.

In 1984, only 14 percent of Americans wore seat belts. Anyone else remember bouncing unrestrained around the back of the family station wagon like I did? Three years later, after seat belt laws were enacted in 30 states, that percentage tripled to 42 percent. Last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 90 percent of Americans faithfully buckled up while on the roads.

We often say Politics is downstream from culture. That's mostly true. While laws tend to reflect ideas and trends already embedded in the larger culture, especially in the arts, education, and business, the state still has significant power to influence behavior and the larger culture as well.

In the case of the seatbelt, the state wielded its power for good. However, the same power can be used to normalize beliefs or behavior that is not good. That risk is greater in cultures already sliding down the slippery moral slope.

For example, Vermont recently became the first state to mandate that every public middle and high school make free condoms available to students. The bill's sponsor, a Republican state lawmaker, believes that this new law will reduce teenage pregnancies, and therefore abortions. Strangely enough, the sponsor does not seem to think the law will normalize and increase sexual behavior among teenagers. Why the assumption that the law only incentivizes desirable outcomes but not undesirable ones?

According to most contemporary studies, sexual activity among teens is way down. Though these studies typically fail to include porn addiction as sexual activity, we can all agree that fewer teens experimenting sexually is a good thing. At the same time, these studies show that adults often misunderstand the culture and incentives affecting teenage sexual behavior.

For example, a 2017 Harvard study found that the scale of the so-called "hook-up" culture among teens was "overestimated." In other words, all the movies, TV programming and news coverage portraying American high school kids as highly sexually active are wrong. In fact, these Harvard researchers found that the way "hook-up" culture is so often portrayed actually propagates it, putting more pressure on teenagers to have sex.

Similarly flawed thinking is behind Vermont's new legislation. Lawmakers and educators, by assuming teens are sexually active and suggesting in public policy that we should all resign ourselves to helping them do it "safely," only add pressure and incentives to the already-fragile equation of media, hormones, and opportunity.

I find it a bit strange--and ironic--that lawmakers and other cultural elites who are so quick to claim power simply throw up their hands and claim to be powerless when it comes to sexual activity among young people. "Well, the kids are going to do it anyway," they say. "We might as well enable it."

What if lawmakers back in 1984 said, "Well, looks like no one's wearing their seat belts. We might as well accept that risky behavior and increase the speed limit while we're at it"? That would have been absurd. So, why is that the approach so many adults take when it comes to sex?

That's not a rhetorical question. A culture that already views sex as the core feature of our identity finds the suggestion that we teach kids not to have it unthinkable. A culture that views sex as the pinnacle of human existence will consider any parameters on sexual behaviors to be emotionally, spiritually and physically dangerous. In other words, what has changed is not merely our moral standards, but our entire view of the universe and the human person.

Every available metric of social and mental health suggest that today's kids are more depressed, more anxious, and feel more lonely and isolated than any generation before them. The last thing young people need is adults telling them that "no-strings-attached" sex is a good idea. Or even possible. We have the data. Teens who engage in sexual activity are more likely to be depressed than other teens. They're more likely to attempt suicide. Two-thirds of kids who reported having sex in high school told researchers in a 2000 study that they regretted it. Kids who abstain from sex are also more likely to go to college. Free condoms for kids will only lead to more loneliness, more isolation, and more pain.

At each and every stage of the sexual revolution, the promise has been that "the kids will be fine." They aren't. "Safe sex" for children is a misnomer. Neither schools nor governments should incentivize behavior we know will harm students, but that's exactly what Vermont is doing. We should do all we can to ensure other states doen't follow suit.

John and Shane end Ask BreakPoint with a challenging question. The listener asks if being an originalist with the constitution, in the way that Amy Coney-Barrett is, is racist because of the Three-fifths compromise. Shane creates an important distinction that the three-fifths compromise was an addressing of political influence in the South. Shane points out that the northern states didn't want slaves to have full representation in congress because it would give the south an overwhelming majority.

The pair take time to not only point out how the founders saw slavery as a moral evil that requires justice from God. Their handling of the topic supports the value and dignity of all humans and the complicated history and structure of the constitution.

Does Congress legislate morality? This is the second question John and Shane address in the Ask BreakPoint Podcast this week.

The pair unpack the paths that lead to the issue of legislating morality. They walk through a number of logical foundations from Scripture in how God provides civil guidance for Israel. They point out how even pagan nations have a standard of living that must answer to God.

Before the question on legislating morality John and Shane provide resources on a thoughtful view to artificial intelligence. John highlights books by Sheri Turkle and Neil Postman, providing a strong philosophical framework to engage artificial intelligence. Shane references an interview with Jason Thacker he conducted on the BreakPoint Podcast where Jason addresses the issue in a practical way.

To close John and Shane provide a structure to address the issue of rape and incest inside the abortion debate. Their handling of the question provides setting and context that will help the listener in the ongoing debate with care and dignity.

Last week, the Dutch government took yet another step down the very-slippery slope of euthanasia when the national health minister proposed that doctors should be permitted to euthanize "terminally ill" children under the age of thirteen. In a letter to the Parliament, he wrote, "In a small number of cases, palliative care isn't sufficient . . . Because of that, some children suffer unnecessarily without any hope of improvement."

Given the path the Netherlands (and Belgium for the matter) have been one for so long, such an appalling announcement shouldn't surprise anyone, even if it is from someone tasked with national health. It was only a matter of time before countries killing the elderly, the infirmed, and the preborn would also begin killing children outside of the womb… and all in the name of "compassion."

While the United States has not been on the path nearly as long, we may find ourselves in a similar place before too long. If it happens, our failure to protect the vulnerable elderly during the COVID-19 epidemic may prove to give us more than a nudge in the wrong direction. Let me explain.

Approximately 220,000 Americans have reportedly died from COVID-19. Weary from lockdowns, changing headlines, and the blame game, it's easy to lose sight of the scale of this tragedy. But we ought not miss just who is dying from the coronavirus.

In the United States, people over 65 account for 80 percent of all COVID-19 deaths. On a state-by-state basis, the percentage ranges from over 90 percent in a handful of states to 70 percent in others. We might say these deaths largely resulted from a pre-existing condition, but I don't mean co-morbidities. What I mean is that, even before COVID-19, Americans weren't doing well caring for our elderly.

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas has written that hospitals should be "first and foremost a house of hospitality along the way of our journey with finitude… our sign that we will not abandon those who have become ill." Instead, hospitals are mainly our "means of isolating the ill from the rest of us," places where we can keep the reality of aging and death out of sight and out of mind. In late Western culture, we handle old age and dying primarily by denial.

Denial becomes harder during a pandemic, of course. At the same time, two underlying conditions of our collective soul have been exposed. The first is our aversion to suffering.

Dying from COVID-19 is often painful and, at least in how things have been handled thus far, nearly always lonely. Advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide always insist, especially in a culture like ours that fails to see dignity in the midst of suffering, that so called "death with dignity" is a "compassionate" necessity, and thus should be offered for the elderly who contract COVID.

The second condition is the financial one. Though we are always told that money won't be a factor in end-of-life decisions, especially when it comes to insurance companies and government bureaucrats, studies continue to show it is, especially by individuals who don't want to be a "financial burden" on their families. The economic costs of COVID-19 are still being realized, as are the resulting financial pressures on decision makers. And, as we continue to see from the case of the Netherlands, once the principle is conceded that some lives are not worth living, the list of lives eligible for euthanasia only grows.

Christians must not have any part in this. In fact, we must push back on the culture of death anywhere and everywhere we can.

Stanley Hauerwas once said that "…in a hundred years, if Christians are known as a strange group of people who don't kill their children and don't kill the elderly, we will have done a great thing." I pray we are known for more than that, but certainly not less.

Because we know that God raised Jesus from the dead, we should also be known as those not afraid of aging and dying. We should be known for taking seriously the eternal value of every human life, from the moment of conception until natural death, even if doing so involves some measure of sacrifice on our part (and it will).

Finally, we should not be known as the ones jaded by tragedy or disaster. For the Christ-follower, hundreds of thousands of deaths should never become, to paraphrase Stalin, a "statistic." When it does, the door is only opened for future evils.

During the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii expressed outrage and shock that the nominee used the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation." "Sexual preference," announced Senator Hirono, "is an offensive and outdated term…used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice—it is not."

After the exchange, Merriam-Webster which, like most Americans had not gotten the memo with these new linguistic absolutes, quickly changed the definition of sexual "preference" in its online dictionary to indicate that this wording is now offensive. Who knew?

Beyond the Orwellianism it of changing the dictionary to support political claims, it seems that Senator Hirono is the one who is actually behind the times on the whole sexual orientation vs. sexual preference issue.

According to Dr. Glenn Stanton, in an outstanding new article at Public Discourse, "Judge Barrett's terminology is actually more in line with the latest thinking of leading gender scholars." For example, Professor Sari van Anders at Canada's Queen's University has stated that "sexual orientation as a term is increasingly seen as regressive," because it "belongs to the biossentialist project."

Translating to English, the word orientation suggests that sexuality is hard-wired and, according to Professor Anders, that's just not the consensus anymore among her peers. Though the whole "born this way" claim was once a useful slogan to advance gay rights, it no longer serves the goals of the LGBTQ movement.

Years ago, for instance, two scholars at the University of California Los Angeles questioned the concept of sexual orientation for women, suggesting instead that "Women's sexuality and orientation are potentially fluid, changeable over time, and variable across social contexts." Other social scientists cited by Stanton call for a "paradigm shift" in how female sexuality is studied and described, and plenty of surveys frequently indicate that most self-identified lesbians have relationships with men at some point.

There's also a more obvious problem with the idea of a fixed orientation in the very initials of the acronym, especially the B, the T, and the Q of "LGBTQ." As political commentator Douglas Murray (who identifies as gay) writes, "bisexuals continue to be viewed…as some kind of betrayal from within [the gay community's] midst. Gay men tend to believe that men who claim to be 'Bi' are in fact gays in some form of denial…" Yet, according to a Pew Research report from last summer, bisexuals account for almost half of LGBTQ adults in the US. In fact, the authors of a new book published by Harvard University Press think that male bisexuals or those who call themselves "mostly straight" vastly outnumber exclusively gay men. Thus, they conclude the old system of "gay, straight, or bi" has, as Stanton puts it, "outgrown its usefulness."

An even bigger challenge than the B to the "born this way" dogma is the T. Gay rights and marriage were sold to us on the premise that homosexuality is hard-wired, perhaps even genetic, like race. Anyone claiming transgender as an identity, however, does so in spite of physical and genetic realities, not because of them. And the "Q," which usually stands for "questioning," continues to evolve in meaning and practice to include having more and more sexual preferences as an identity.

One wonders whether Senator Hirono would feel compelled to lecture the various social scientists Stanton cites in the article, for arguing that "orientation" is, in fact, the wrong concept. My suspicion is she wouldn't. In fact, my suspicion is that Senator Hirono was fed this talking point by an aid checking Twitter and saw it as an opportunity to tar and feather Judge Barrett as a bigot.

What's ultimately revealed by her political posturing and woke language-policing, however, is crucially important to know. That Phrases such as sexual orientation or sexual preference or whatever the latest nomenclature are terms made up not to describe reality, but to advance the idea that has revolutionized so much of our culture and politics: that sexual attractions and urges define or determine who we are. That's the idea we must not embrace, even if we face faux outrage from a Senator.

In a famous scene in the 1979 Monty Python film "Life of Brian," which I don't recommend, A character named Stan announces that he wants to become a woman and wants to be called "Loretta." True to Monty Python form, the whole exchange is treated as a joke and, in the process, the idea of changing sexes is mocked as a "struggle against reality."

Last week, in a townhall discussion, the current frontrunner in the election for the presidency of the United States said, in absolute terms, that an eight-year-old boy should be allowed to identify as a girl, and the law and society should treat him as such. No one is laughing anymore.

What exactly happened to usher in this new orthodoxy that often involves chemical manipulation and surgical mutilation? How did this move from an expression of adult freedom to experimentation on children? How did the unthinkable become unquestionable so quickly?

In a new book, one of America's top theologians argues that what's at work is far more than a sudden change in morality. Rather, a much older and more subtle revolution in how Western people think about self is now bearing fruit.

In The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution, Grove City professor Carl Trueman makes the case that our ever-growing alphabet of identity claims is, in fact, based on an idea most Westerners embraced long ago. Ultimate reality, we believe, is found within ourselves. The external world, including our bodies, is just a canvas for expressing what we find within.

Trueman joined my colleague Shane Morris on the new Colson Center podcast "Upstream." During their discussion, Trueman described this idea that he calls "expressive individualism" as the root of our culture's growing sexual insanity and disconnectedness from reality.

For most of Western history, hard physical realities, such as the seasons, the land, the harvest, and the community shaped life, and the teachings of Scripture and the Church shaped a common understanding of human identity. For our western forbears, the world and the Biblical story described an objective order into which their lives fit.

Many factors began to converge to change this. Grand improvements and accomplishments in technology offered the strong impression we were sovereign over nature, in control of where we got food, how we traveled, and even when we were born and died. The banishment of God from science, philosophy, and politics, echoing the tempter's boast in Eden, convinced us that we don't live according to a design. We can, rather, be our own gods. Our own designers. Our ultimate happiness will come from within.

The cultural changes that have resulted from these ideas have been remarkable and tragic. Still, Trueman suggests, Christians are by no means innocent. Transgender dogma is just the latest fruit of expressive individualism. No-fault divorce, contraception, and even in many cases, abortion are also fruit of this poisonous idea, and faced very little pushback from many Christians and many churches.

The sexual revolution advanced the idea that everything about our lives and culture both can and should be retroactively conformed to our individual desires and sense of self. Thus, a man can become a woman, a boy can become a girl, and no amount of medication or mutilation is too high a price for self-expression.

In the conversation on the Upstream podcast and in his new book, Trueman describes the problem in realistic and sobering terms. But he also offers hope, a hope grounded in both a sobering analysis as well as the ultimate triumph of life over death and truth over lies. His tremendous new book is an essential analysis of what has happened in our culture, and what happens to any culture when people disconnect from their Creator and His created intent. Check out the conversation between Carl Trueman and Shane Morris on the "Upstream" podcast. We'll link you to both at BreakPoint.org.

In the BreakPoint Podcast, author Rod Dreher joins John Stonestreet to discuss his latest book. In Live Not By Lies Dreher paints a grim picture of hard totalitarianism in Russia, warning Americans that we're stepping into a period of soft totalitarianism.

John and Rod provide helpful perspectives in raising a generation with strong faith convictions. One specific story highlighted Tomislov Kolacovic, a Russian pastor who provided teaching for Christians during Russian persecution. Kolacovic coined the response see, judge, and act when facing challenges to the faith. John highlights the concept as a strong practice for parents to teach children today, giving a platform to stand strong in faith amid culture conflicts.

The pair also provide context to why youth turn to socialism. Dreher notes through personal stories how much of the dark history of totalitarianism is not passed down to the younger generation. Live Not By Lies provides a historical treatise outlining the dangers of soft totalitarianism that is prevalent in our culture today.