Breakpoint

On Wednesday of this week, I was honored to participate in a media event, along with former U.S. Representative. Frank Wolf, current U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, former Super Bowl star Ben Watson, and Stephen Enada, President of the International Committee on Nigeria (ICON). The targeting of Christians in Nigeria, for persecution, abduction, and death, is so dire, it’s been labeled “genocide” by observers both inside and outside the country.

Especially in northern Nigeria, Christians are under a sustained, brutal assault by two groups bent on their destruction: The Islamist terror group Boko Haram and Fulani militants motivated by a mixture of Islamist ideology and greed for land. On any given day, Christians are killed, raped, and kidnapped.

An interactive calendar on the ICON website offers a documented summary of how many Christian have been victimized each day since December of last year. As I mentioned in my comments for the panel, this campaign against believers has been going on for years, but the calendar offers a visual picture that the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is as recent as last week. For example, just last week, over 20 Christians were killed and over 60 abducted.

As Stephen Enada, leader of ICON and host for Wednesday’s panel, told me recently on the BreakPoint Podcast, Nigerian Christians are in the midst of an “existential crisis.” In addition to those killed, there are more than 3 million displaced Nigerians. Women and children are being trafficked to Europe.

Yet the Nigerian government has embraced a policy of indifference, if not complicity. At most, they arrest a few perpetrators, declare them “de-radicalized” after a short while, and send them back into the community. Many continue to prey upon their Christian neighbors.

This is why every member of Wednesday’s panel called for external pressure. The Nigerian government must be pressured by the international community, especially the government of the United States of America. Creating that pressure is the mission of ICON. Their comprehensive report, “Genocide in Nigeria,” offers the full, heartbreaking picture of what is happening in Africa’s largest country. You can get a copy on their website.

Wednesday’s event was designed not only to inform media about ICON’s activities and resources, but to press for action while offering possible ways the U.S. might pressure the Nigerian government to act.

After pointing out that more Christians have been killed in Nigeria than Islamists have killed in Syria and the rest of the Middle East, Former Representative Frank Wolf urged the Trump Administration to appoint a special envoy for Nigeria. In addition to working with the U.N. and NGOs to coordinate all efforts to confront the crisis, a special envoy will send a signal that the United States is serious about the problem and is willing to put its sizeable weight to work in order to address it.

Enada seconded Wolf’s recommendations, saying that “it’s more important than ever that the U.S. government act to resolve this crisis. A special envoy,” he said, “with the full backing of our federal government, would have the power to hold perpetrators accountable.” Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Hindu, voiced her support for these kinds of efforts as well. Too often, she said “these attacks go unnoticed,” but Americans must “join our voices against the systematic slaughter of Christians.”

Former Super Bowl Champion Ben Watson struck perhaps the most inspirational note of the event. “If we are silent about [what’s happening in Nigeria] we are in some way complicit.”  He then linked the campaign for justice in Nigeria to the campaign for racial justice here at home: “This shouldn't be limited to our shores . . . we must raise a voice against violations around the world.”

Please, come to BreakPoint.org, for a link to the video of the event. We urge you to share it widely on social media and send it to your representatives in Congress.

And please, pray for our brothers and sisters in Nigeria. As I said at the event on Wednesday, and I’ll say it again, praying is doing something. Primarily, prayer aligns our hearts with the heart of God. And, make no mistake, the heart of God is aligned with our brothers and sisters who are being persecuted. The more we pray the less we will tolerate silence about their persecution.

Buzzfeed News is running a series of feature stories this month called “The Lost Year,” featuring profiles of how six people, of different ages and backgrounds have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The stories range from challenging to even, in some cases, devastating.

Still, the title of this series is, I think, misleading. Is this really a “lost” year? Is there even such a thing?

In the 17th Chapter of Acts, Luke describes what looks like, at first glance, a pause in Paul’s missionary efforts. After being run out of, first, Thessalonica and then Berea, Paul is stuck in Athens, waiting for Silas and Timothy to catch up. However, Luke describes Paul not as “impatient,” but as “greatly distressed” by the pornographic, violent, and quite extensive idol worship all around him in the city of Athens.

His initial attempts to share the Gospel confuse his Epicurean and Stoic listeners, and so, given a chance to present in a moral formal setting, Paul goes back to square one. There is only one God, Paul proclaims, one alone. He created everything. He wasn’t created by some sculptor, nor does He live anywhere made by human hands.

The two opposing philosophical camps in Paul’s audience hold differing views, particularly about the relationship between the gods and history. The Stoics believed the gods determined and controlled everything about our time and place, leaving no real room for human free will. The Epicureanson the other hand, believed that after the gods created the world, they tired of it and lost interest, leaving human beings to their own devices. With no one watching, so to speak, people were left in a sort of moral free-for-all. “Eat, drink, and be merry,” as the saying goes, “for tomorrow we die.”

It is in the context of these competing philosophies that Paul offers a fascinating and important insight about the one true God: “From one man He made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth. And He marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their dwelling place. He did this so that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him.” (emphasis added)

In other words, to both the fatalist Stoics and the hedonistic Epicureans, Paul describes a God who is intimately involved in time and place so that we can find Him. In other words, it is no accident that we find ourselves in this time and this place. The God who created you intended the right now of every single human life. 

What a crucial insight in a world that, since the pandemic, feels like it’s suspended in time. We’ve so much to mourn these last several months, especially the hundreds of thousands of people who have died, and the loved ones forced to miss funerals, as well as many weddings and births. We’ve watched as suicide rates have gone up, and the elderly and vulnerable have suffered in isolation. 

But God wasn’t surprised by this. This is hard, but if Paul is correct, this time in history isn’t an interruption. It’s not a lost year.

In one of the Buzzfeed “Lost Year” profiles, a mother describes mourning the loss of certain childhood experiences. Her young son missed playing basketball with his friends this year or walking to school. I understand her disappointment at these “missed” experiences. At the same time, the pandemic and these shutdowns and all the chaos surrounding them are also childhood experiences, because there are children experiencing them. This is where God has placed them and us; and, like Paul told the Athenians, this present moment is where we can seek Him, find Him, and do what He’s asked us to do.

Throughout the pandemic, there are many stories of Christians finding innovative ways to seize the opportunities in front of them. Samaritan’s Purse set up an entire temporary hospital in New York City to treat the sick. Many churches pivoted to online services and never stopped reaching out to their neighbors. A few weeks ago, we shared about churches opening their doors for kids whose schools are closed, given them a place to do online schoolwork during the day while their parents work. None of these good works are done by those who shrug shoulders and chalk up inconvenience, tragedy, and challenge as “lost time.”

At the same time, many families are re-discovering shared meal times, learning, hiking, playing and praying together. And make no mistake this is an opportunity for parents to help kids cultivate something they will desperately need for the rest of their lives, especially in a culture like ours: resilience. A resume of happy childhood experiences  isn’t necessarily the best way to cultivate that.

This moment God has determined for us is challenging and chaotic. But He also determined us for this moment. And He’s with us.

This is no lost year.

John Stonestreet and Shane tackle this question from a listener: "The director of "Cuties" was trying to highlight the sexualization of girls. Why are we condemning this movie when that was her intention and the film so clearly portrays what happens to girls in a highly sexualized culture?"

John and Shane give an impassioned response, one that ends up tying directly into the second question about human dignity: "You always say that every human [including pre-teen actresses in "Cuties"] is made in the image of God . . . but God is a spirit, we are all humans. How do you explain 'in the image of God'?"

“WAP and ‘Cuties'” by John Stonestreet and David Carlson, BreakPoint

“No Christianity, No Human Rights” by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, BreakPoint

The Dignity Revolution: Reclaiming God’s Rich Vision for Humanity by Daniel Darling, available at the Colson Center online bookstore

Dan Darling: The Identity Revolution, a BreakPoint Podcast interview by John Stonestreet

I’m old enough to remember that time, way back in 2018, when Democrats and Republicans worked together. Really, it did happen and resulted in a major, bi-partisan criminal justice reform bill called “The First Step Act,” which sought to reduce the number of people in overcrowded federal prisons and improve conditions for those behind bars.

When he endorsed the bill, President Trump said, “We’re all better off when former inmates can receive and re-enter society as law-abiding, productive citizens.” At last month’s Republican National Convention, Ivanka Trump called the First Step Act "the most significant criminal justice reform of our generation." That’s not an overstatement.

A major feature of the bill is that it reduces mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, especially “low-level, nonviolent offenders.” For those already serving time for crack cocaine-related offenses, the reductions were retroactive.

In its first year, the First Step Act has literally changed thousands of lives. According to a recent report from the United States Sentencing Commission, the sentences of more than 7,000 federal prisoners, deemed able to safely return to their communities, were reduced.

As the libertarian publication Reason rightly noted, the First Step Act is a modest, but very real, “first step” towards comprehensive criminal justice reform. I’d add that, as part of the legacy of Chuck Colson and the very good work of Prison Fellowship, the bill is an example of the Church’s work of restoration.

God used Chuck Colson to transform the way many of our political leaders, in particular conservatives, think about criminal justice. While in prison, Chuck learned how empty and even counterproductive the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” rhetoric that he once espoused really was. The call God placed on Chuck’s life to bring the Gospel to prisoners and their families through Prison Fellowship quickly expanded to include prison and criminal justice reform. He quickly realized that being “tough on crime” was pointless unless we were first “smart on crime.”

Being “smart on crime” led Chuck to campaign against the “three strikes and you’re out” laws that swept the U.S. during the 1990s. He knew that such laws would only lead to overcrowded prisons, unaffordable system building and maintenance, and eventually the court-ordered releases of thousands of prisoners from political pressures rather than prudential wisdom.

God used Chuck’s solid conservative, Christian, and law-and-order credentials to advance this message. People who may not have given other activists the time of day respectfully listened. Many hearts and minds were changed, not only by Chuck Colson’s passion or ability to articulate, but because he took people back into the prison with him to see for themselves what he saw. To borrow a modern phrase, Chuck moved the “Overton Window,” i.e. the acceptable “range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population.”

And so, decades later, years after Chuck Colson’s death, at a time of deep and painful political divisions, the First Step Act garnered bipartisan support.

Chuck’s legacy of giving people the moral permission and intellectual justifications to do the right thing is something Christians should seek to emulate in every aspect of culture.

Of course, in order to do this, we must first know what the right thing is. And, we must learn to talk about issues in ways that can be heard. About a year ago, this vision drove us to launch What Would You Say?, a video resource designed to help Christians converse on our culture’s most challenging questions.

Our stories may not be as dramatic and consequential as Chuck Colson’s, but we can strive for the same humility, credibility, preparation, and willingness to be used by God, if not in prison then in whatever sphere of influence He gives us.

To learn more about the First Step Act and Prison Fellowship’s excellent work to bring the Gospel and restoration prisoners and their families, come to BreakPoint.org.

A year ago, the Colson Center launched an ambitious project that would equip Christians with answers to our culture's toughest questions, the kind of questions that tend to generate more heat than light whenever they come up. The type that many Christians tend to shy away from. With this resource, we hoped to see Christians running into those conversations about God, morality, truth, and culture, not running away from them.

The What Would You Say? project is a video series, with each video answering a single, difficult question with answers that are trustworthy, credible, understandable, and most importantly, shareable. Among the questions we’ve tackled in the past year: Are science and religion opposed to one another? Is critical theory biblical? When does life begin? Does rape justify abortion? Does the existence of intersex people prove there are more than two genders? How about this one: Was Jesus a Socialist? Does porn improve relationships? Do the crusades prove that Christianity is a violent religion? (You know, all the easy questions Christians get…)

These videos can be found either at WhatWouldYouSay.org or by going to the What Would You Say channel on YouTube. While there, hit the subscribe button and join the over 23,000 others who’ve joined the What Would You Say community. So far, the videos have been viewed over a million times.

Over the next 12 weeks or so, with election season in full gear, we’ve planned a set of videos to to tackle the various political and policy questions and issues that are front and center on people’s minds. These videos will not only equip Christians for conversations about the presidential campaign and the place of faith in the public square, but also about those issues central to state and local ballots, including abortion restrictions, education, economics, race, and civic responsibility. 

For example, two videos already available address questions many young people have about economics, questions that lead them in a socialist direction. “Is Socialism the Answer?” and “Does Capitalism Only Benefit the Rich?”

Over the next few weeks, we will release videos that tackle two political questions having to do with abortion. First, how should you respond when someone says, “I Don’t Like Abortion, but It Shouldn’t Be Illegal?” According to a recent study, a significant number of Americans who think abortion is wrong are reticent to make any legal changes, including to horrific practices such as later-term abortions. This is an issue on the Colorado ballot this year. Shamefully, my state is one of only nine that remain in which later-term abortion is allowed. Our state’s most famous late-term abortionist kills more than 200 so-called “viable fetuses” a year. (That’s why we’ve also scheduled a What Would You Say video on the issue of later-term abortions.)

In early October, a series of What Would You Say videos will tackle questions about voting: “Why Should Christians Vote?” “Should I Vote if I Don’t Like Any of the Candidates?” and, of course, how to respond to that old line “My Vote Won’t Make a Difference Anyway.”

Each What Would You Say video is short and shareable, only about 4 or 5 minutes long, animated and interesting, well-researched, and solidly grounded in Scripture and a Christian worldview. Each What Would You Say video will leave you with 3 or 4 memorable points to help you wade confidently into tough conversations.

Also, to help you prepare for the craziness of the next several weeks, we’ve created a downloadable, full-color What Would You Say booklet. Based on the videos and entitled, “Your Guide for Talking About the Tough Issues in 2020,” this resource walks you through hot-button issues such as abortion, Critical Theory, whether Christians should avoid politics and why voting is the beginning of our civic responsibilities.

This booklet is available with any donation to BreakPoint and the Colson Center. Simply come to BreakPoint.org/September. Your gift will help us continue to produce What Would You Say videos, equipping Christians with answers to our culture’s toughest questions. When you give here, you will be automatically taken to a page where you can download the PDF “Guide to Talking about the Tough Issues in 2020.”

Again, that’s at BreakPoint.org/September.

In a pair of tweets that recently made rounds on social media, a young progressive woman issued her doctrinal creed: “I am a Christian and I believe proselytizing is violence…I am a Christian and I believe LGBTQ+ ppl are divine and should lead us…I am a Christian and I don’t go to church. I am a Christian and I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God.”

One wonders why one who already rejects church, evangelism, Christian morality, and Scripture would still want to keep the title Christian, this tweeter is merely a more extreme example of a very common approach to faith, including Christianity.

To be clear, think kind of self-constructed, Build-A-Bear, buffet-style belief acquisition works fine for some worldviews, especially the Westernized, New-Agey offsprings of Eastern pantheisms (pan=all and theos=god, so literally those religions that believe everything is god and god is everything).

“Christianity,” however, as a revealed worldview, has an objective definition. Christianity centers ultimate reality and, therefore, ultimate authority, outside (not within) the created order, locates it in a Divine Personal Being who has made Himself known through what He has made, through Holy Scripture, and ultimately made known Himself through Christ Jesus.  One might doubt that there is a God who has revealed Himself or that God has revealed Himself in these ways, and therefore reject Christianity. But because Christianity is a worldview that comes already carefully defined, it’s not open to mass-scale revisions.

Last month, Arizona Christian University released a study called “The American Worldview Inventory, it’s a project led by George Barna. According to the report, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe having “some kind of faith” is more important than the specific faith a person chooses. And, almost seventy percent of those who gave that response identified as Christians.

The same survey found that a slight majority of self-identified Christians think a person can attain salvation by “being or doing good,” a belief contrary to the New Testament’s claim that salvation comes “by grace…through faith,” and “not by works…”

The results of another survey, jointly sponsored by LifeWay Research and Ligonier Ministries found that over half of Americans and nearly a third of evangelicals agree with the statement that Jesus was a “good teacher, but he was not God.” And yet another recent survey, conducted by the Barna Group with World Vision, found that nearly half of young adults globally say that the church can’t answer their questions or spiritual doubts.

The sample size of the Barna study, over 15 thousand respondents from 25 countries and nine languages, suggests that theological literacy and worldview clarity are not just American deficiencies. Christian identity is at risk on a global scale, including what the word “Christian” even means, and whether Christian truth claims are distinct, knowable, and reliable.

Confronting this widespread confusion requires at least two things. First, following Ryan Anderson’s example of bringing clarity to the debate over same-sex “marriage” (“Sorry, marriage is a thing, and same-sex relationships just aren’t marriage”), we must be willing to definitively say when necessary, “Sorry, Christianity is defined, and that’s just not Christianity.”

Second, and more importantly, we need to abandon the self-constructed, Build-A-Bear, buffet approach to religion that is so pervasive in our own hearts and our own churches. A great place to start in clarifying “the faith that was delivered once for all to the saints,” as Jude says is, of course Holy Scripture. For a trusted guide, check out what may be Chuck Colson’s most important book, The Faith: Given Once for All.

Also, our outreach and church growth strategies must conform to what Scripture reveals. Too often, perhaps to make Jesus more palatable to nonbelievers, we elevate personal preference and give the impression that much of the faith is negotiable. That strategy inevitably ends with the Church, the Bible, morality, and even Jesus Himself becoming negotiable.

And to close, let me say this: We shouldn’t worry whether what the author of Hebrews calls “the first principles of God’s Word,” can survive the scrutiny, doubt, and disdain of the modern world. Christian truth will most certainly survive. It’s survived until now, and it will survive, because, after all, it’s True.

John Stonestreet and Shane Morris reflect on the nineteenth anniversary of 9/11. How has 9/11 shaped a generation's cultural memory? And what events are shaping the cultural memory of today's younger generations--and what effect will that have on the culture itself?

Also in this episode: Dinsey's cozy relationship with the genocidal Chinese Communist government; is it really possible that people will fall for the idea that looting is not only permissible, but liberating for the oppressed?; thoughts on critical race theory, and the culture's schizophrenia when it comes to on the one hand condemning the sexualization of children while at the same time creating cultural artifacts--films, novels, etc.--that glorify the sexualization of children.

They wrap up the show with their recommendations for the week: Shane's praise for the Christian folk duo Gray Havens; John on Katy Faust's upcoming book Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movmement.

“Disney’s Mulan and the Backdrop of Genocide,” John Stonestreet and David Carlson, BreakPoint

“Is Critical Theory Biblical?” What Would You Say video, Colson Center for Christian Worldview

“The Sexual Revolution, Identity Politics, and Religious Liberty,” Interview with Mary Eberstadt, BreakPoint Podcast

Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights Movement, by Katy Faust, pre-order available

The Gray Havens, website

While natural disasters are mostly, by definition, unavoidable, we can often take basic steps to mitigate damage, such as not building in flood zones or on top of major fault lines. Man-made disasters, on the other hand, are almost entirely avoidable, but quite often, we become victims of ideologies and collective pride.

For example, last week a panel of genetics experts issued a direct, stark warning against editing genes of human embryos destined for implantation. The panel, which consisted of experts from 10 different countries, was jointly convened by the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.K. Royal Society.

The present state of gene editing, said the panel’s report, is simply too risky, for both individual embryos and the human race as a whole. While technologies such as CRISPR are “fairly precise” in targeting and editing certain genes, recent ventures have demonstrated that “fairly precise” isn’t nearly good enough. 

For instance, when researchers at the Francis Crick Institute in London used CRISPR to edit 18 human embryos., in order to study “the role of a particular gene in the earliest stages of human development,” around half of the embryos contained what they called “major unintended edits.” The phrase “major unintended edits” is a euphemism for “harmful mutations” and “genetic damage,” of the kind that could lead to birth defects or life-threatening medical problems like cancer, not to mention could permanently enter the gene pool.

Two other studies were cited in the same report. In one, researchers attempted to correct a gene mutation that causes blindness. In the other, the attempt was to prevent certain heart defects. However, researchers found that, in both experiments, a significant percentage of treated embryos suffered chromosomal damage.

One genetics expert described these failures to Nature this way: “If human embryo editing for reproductive purposes or germline editing were space flight, the new data are the equivalent of having the rocket explode at the launch pad before take-off.”

Once again, this new report focused only on the technical failures of gene editing. Once again, any discussion or even acknowledgement of the many ethical questions inherent to the very idea of gene editing were avoided. So now, in what’s become far too typical of the scientific culture of our age in which philosophy and ethics are divorced from technology and science, research proceeds with an ethical framework of utilitarianism built on a philosophy of scientism. (Or, to put it far more bluntly: gene editing continues because, you know, science is our only real hope and if we can do something we should).

And so, even though this panel admits that it could be years before the “technical difficulties” of gene editing are “ironed out,” experiments will continue, and should continue though “initially limited to serious genetic disorders that are caused by DNA variants in a single gene” and should be used “only when the alternatives for having a biologically related child that is unaffected by the genetic disorder are poor.”

Scientific hubris is, indeed, a tough train to stop. Certainly, an international panel of “experts” admitting that gene editing is dangerous and often unnecessary, but should proceed anyway with caution won’t stop the eager scientists around the world or the governments and corporations who fund them.

The sincere desire to eradicate dangerous genetic diseases is understandable, and even noble. The longing to heal reflects God’s image in us. Ethically sound and medically safe treatments should be pursued, but we should never proceed without full awareness of the human temptation to “become like God” as Genesis 3 tells us, “determining good and evil.” After all, couples are already genetically screening donor sperm to create “designer babies,” and governments (like, say, China) have already demonstrated their willingness to experiment on entire ethnic groups. We are a world and, too often, a church who proceeds with the most invasive and inhumane technologies without adequate or, in some cases, any serious ethical reflection.

There is time to prevent the potential man-made catastrophe of gene-editing. Time, however, won’t be enough without the will to say no.

In just the past two months, authorities in Michigan, Ohio and Georgia rescued 58 children, ranging in age from three to 17, who were either missing or were victims of sex trafficking. In Ohio and Georgia, United States Marshals led the rescue missions. In 2005, a partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children launched operations like these all across the country. In addition to the children who were rescued, more than two dozen predators were arrested.

Terms such as “sex trafficking” or “human trafficking” evoke a certain made-for-Hollywood image, of high-tech cartels in big cities run by wealthy criminal masterminds. While those operations exist, the truth is often less flashy and more common. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, child sex trafficking includes the “recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining or advertising of a minor child for the purpose of a commercial sex act.” Of the roughly 24-thousand endangered runaways reported last year, estimates are that one in six were victims of sex trafficking. 

Traffickers aren’t always the shadowy strangers nabbing girls in an airport or shopping mall. Often, they are family members or family friends, such as parents who’ve lost custody or guardians looking to profit. Runaways are particularly vulnerable to people who are willing to take them in with intent to use them.

In other words, trafficking in some form or another could be happening in most of our communities.

That’s what is happening. The question is, how did we get here?

A few weeks ago, Netflix found itself at the center of a scandal over a French movie that it still intends to release this month. “Cuties” tells the story of an 11-year-old girl who joins a “twerking dance crew” to “explore her femininity” and gain independence. Those are Netflix’s words, not mine. When Netflix ran an ad for the film showing young girls with bare legs and midriffs, a widely circulated petition demanded they remove the movie. Instead, they removed the ad. The movie’s still a go.

In other words, there is a culture-wide disconnect between the overt sexualization of young children and sex trafficking. The same culture that celebrates when kids are rescued from sex slavery promotes a movie about young girls twerking. A few years back, just two weeks after we celebrate the greatest exploiter of young women in our lifetime, Hugh Hefner, we arrest Harvey Weinstein for exploiting young women. We agree, at least for now, that young kids can’t actually consent to sex, while the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that children barely out of toddlerhood should determine their own gender.

I could go on and on. The inconsistency is dizzying.

Still, these things are examples of one of our culture’s most insidious evils: how we steal childhood in the name of sexual progress. Allowing teenagers to get abortions during school hours without notifying parents steals childhood. Fetishizing adolescence by idolizing teenaged political activists or pre-pubescent movie and music stars steals childhood. I’ve long thought that the jump to pedophilia is smaller than we think. In a world where sexual autonomy is dignity, consent is morality, and kids are encouraged to determine their gender identity regardless of DNA, chromosomes, or bodily realities, it’s a short jump to suggesting, as some on the cultural margins already have, that kids can consent to sexual relationships.

Two years ago at Buzzfeed news, a couple reporters suggested that our culture’s obsession with ending child sex trafficking is overblown and “based on myths.” Some young teens, they wrote, are simply searching for independence and are able to find it in sex work.

Sexual exploitation, however, can never bring freedom. No young person, even at 17 years old, can consent to a sexual encounter that they’ve been told, ironically, will offer them some sort of safety or independence. There is no freedom in lost childhood, just as there’s no freedom in being ruled by twisted sexual desires.

The success of these rescue missions in Ohio, Georgia and Michigan are worth celebrating. If we ever hope to end sex trafficking, however, we’ll need to be more honest and more holistic in our approach to the problem.

John Stonestreet and Shane Morris tackle a couple of tough questions today on the BreakPoint Podcast. Responding to our recent commentary on QAnon and conspiracy theories, one reader asks what's the difference between someone like Sophie Scholl, who alerted people to Nazi atrocities, and those who are labeled conspiracy theorists? Don't they both want to expose evil?

The second question: How, if at all, does one's eschatology--view of the end times--affect how we engage culture?

“QAnon, Conspiracy Theories, and the Church,” by John Stonestreet and Shane Morris, BreakPoint

“Germany to Honor Sophie Scholl,” by John Stonestreet, BreakPoint

Life with a Capital L: Embracing Your God-Given Humanity, by Matt Heard